Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

What You Need to Know About the Recently Enacted Infrastructure Bill

December 06, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This past week, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The bill, commonly referred to as the Infrastructure Bill, provides for $1.2 trillion in spending over the next five years on the nation’s infrastructure and is one of two major legislative initiatives of the Biden Administration, the other being Biden’s $1.75 billion Build Back Better Bill focused on “soft” assets such money to fight climate change, for universal free preschool, for paid family and medical leave, etc. While the Infrastructure Bill contains its fair share of pet projects, economists and historians generally agree that the Infrastructure Bill is the largest investment in the nation’s infrastructure since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” in 1933. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

January 05, 2017 — Masaki J. Yamada – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Washington Courts allow an insurer to determine its duty to defend an insured against a lawsuit based only on the face of the complaint and the limitations of the insurance policy. This is otherwise known as the “eight corners” rule (four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). In other words, the insurance company is not permitted to rely on facts extrinsic to the complaint in order to deny its duty to defend an insured. See Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 763 (2002). The laws in Washington provide greater protection to the insured over the insurer when it comes to the insurer’s duty to defend. The duty to defend a claim is triggered if a claim could “conceivably” be covered under the policy. See Woo v. Fireman’s Insurance, 161 Wn.2d 43 (2007). If there is any ambiguity in a policy with regard to coverage, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured. As a result, contractors in Washington regularly tender claims or potential claims to their insurers even when damage has not occurred but will occur in the imminent future. Especially in the context of construction defect cases, a contractor will tender such a claim to its insurer to trigger the broad duty of the insurer to provide a defense. We also regularly recommend this to our contractor clients. For example, if a building owner serves a contractor with a claim that the construction and installation of a window system will imminently cause leaks and corrosion, we would recommend that the contractor tender the claim to its commercial general liability insurer. Washington courts have found a duty to defend when there are allegations in the complaint that covered damages will occur in the imminent future. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

May 03, 2017 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
For government contractors, an unfavorable performance rating review posted to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) can be extremely costly. Many of the government-negotiated solicitations include past performance as an important, and sometimes even primary, evaluation factor for contract award. An unfavorable CPARS review on a past contract can cause the contractor to incur substantial extra costs in addressing the unfavorable review with contracting officers on future solicitations, and, in some instances, the contractor saddled with an unfair or inaccurate CPARS may have to challenge the review and recover some of these costs. Both the Federal Court of Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) have held that they have jurisdiction to hear Contract Dispute Act claims regarding unfair and/or inaccurate CPARS review. The relief available to contractors until this year was a declaration from the Court of Claims or Board that an unfair or inaccurate CPARS review was arbitrary and capricious. Neither the Board nor the Court had the authority or power to order the contracting officer to change the unfavorable review. The contractor who received a declaration from the Court or the Board regarding an unfavorable CPARS review may use it in the future to explain the unfavorable review when bidding new government work; however, the unfavorable review remains in the CPARS system and shows up on all future solicitations, the Board or Court decision notwithstanding. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

March 29, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
In a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case, the Court was tasked with determining whether the City of Atlanta’s compliance with the Georgia Payment Bond Statutes barred a subcontractor from recovery against it after the general contractor failed to pay and the surety became insolvent. Squared Plumbing Co., LLC (J. Squared), was a subcontractor on a project to clean up sewage spills in approximately 100 dwellings for the City of Atlanta. As required by the contract executed with the City, the general contractor, Scott and Sons Holdings, LLC (Scott and Sons), obtained a $200,000 payment bond from its surety, First Seaford Surety, Inc. (First Seaford). J. Squared sought to collect on the payment bond when Scott and Sons failed to pay J. Squared for the work it performed on the project. However, First Seaford became insolvent. J. Squared subsequently filed a claim against Scott and Sons and the City to recover $140,000 for its work on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage

December 29, 2020 — Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
Back in the day, additional insureds were oftentimes afforded coverage for liability “arising out of” the named insured’s work for the additional insured. When confronted with such language, courts often concluded that it dictated “but for” causation. In other words, but for the named insured doing the work for the additional insured, the additional insured would not be in the liability-facing situation that it is in. The result in some cases: additional insureds were entitled to coverage for their sole negligence. Decisions reaching such a conclusion were generally not well-received by insurers. This was especially so when you consider that the premium received by insurers, for the AI coverage, may not have been enough to buy a package of Twizzlers. Insurer frustration with such decisions -- which insurers did not believe expressed the intent of additional insured coverage -- led ISO to make revisions to additional insured forms in 2004 (later revisions followed). At the heart of these revisions was an attempt to require fault on the part of the named insured before coverage could be afforded to the additional insured. (This is a very brief and simple history of this complex issue.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

May 12, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed that the insurer had no coverage obligations for bodily injury occurring after the policy had been canceled. Hoesen v. Lloyd's of London, 2016 R.I. LEXIS 41 (R.I. March 24, 2016). The plaintiff, Mark Van Hoesen, was seriously injured on July 23, 2012, when he fell from a deck of his house. He sued his contractor, Brian Leonard, alleging that the deck had been negligently constructed. Lloyd's, Leonard's insurer, was later named as a defendant. Lloyd's admitted it issued the policy to Leonard, but it was cancelled on August 29, 2007. Even if it had not been canceled, the policy had expired long before the injuries alleged in plaintiff's complaint occurred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Manhattan’s Property Boom Pushes Landlords to Sell Early

August 26, 2015 — Sarah Mulholland – Bloomberg
Manhattan property owners are cashing out ahead of schedule. With New York real estate values and rents surging, owners of commercial properties acquired as recently as a year ago are already seeking buyers. In the case of one Midtown site, the developer scrapped construction plans to sell an empty plot of land. There’s so much buyer demand that in some situations it’s more opportune for landlords to sell rather than follow through on plans for redevelopment or filling buildings with new tenants. A record $29.4 billion of Manhattan property deals were completed in the first half of 2015, according to brokerage Jones Lang LaSalle Inc., part of a five-year real estate rally that’s pushed prices to new highs in big U.S. cities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Mulholland, Bloomberg

Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

September 17, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s not like we didn’t warn you. In Jones v. Sorenson, Case No. C084870 (August 2, 2018), homeowner Danita Sorenson discovered to her chagrin that she had unwittingly become the employer of Mary Jones, who had been hired by Odette Miranda doing business as Designs by Leo to trim some trees, and was liable for Jones’ injuries when Jones fell off a ladder provided by Miranda. “How can this be?” you might ask. The reason, as it turns out, is simple. Miranda was required to hold a Class D-49 Tree Service Contractor’s license in order to contract with Sorenson to trim her trees, and because Miranda did not hold that license (or, for that matter, any contractor’s license), Sorenson automatically was deemed the employer of Jones under Labor Code Section 2750.5 and, therefore, liable for her injuries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES