SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

May 16, 2022 — Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In March 2022, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, issued Marpac Constr., LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., No. 82200-4-I, 2022 WL 896850, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2022) holding Marpac Construction, LLC (“Marpac”) liable for three willful Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) violations pertaining to safe crane operation near energized power lines. Marpac was the general contractor on an apartment complex construction project in West Seattle. The worksite had high voltage power lines running throughout the site. Seattle City Light had flagged some with a 10-foot offset, but none of the other power lines were flagged. Marpac’s superintendent assumed that the lines were between 26 kilovolts (kV) and 50 kV based on their connection to the lines flagged by Seattle City Light. The superintendent never called Seattle City Light to check the voltage of the lines and the lines remained above ground. In September 2016, a subcontractor began work on the project’s structural foundation. The subcontractor expressed concerns about working around the power lines, but Marpac promised it was working on mitigation of the power line hazard and directed the subcontractor continue working. At one point, the subcontractor’s employees had to move the crane and concrete forms away from the power lines to allow a cement truck to park in its place. The crane’s line contacted the power lines, causing serious injuries to two of the subcontractor’s employees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

---

White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures

November 15, 2021 — Karen C. Bennett - Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (October 15, 2021) - The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has requested comments, by November 22, 2021, on proposed revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The proposal is Phase I in a two-phased approach that will eventually undo a final rule, effective September 2020, that updated NEPA regulations to reflect decades of agency experience and caselaw interpreting the 1969 Act. Phase I proposes to reinstitute 1978 definitions for key terms used to determine the scope of review and the range of alternatives required when undertaking any major federal action. Phase II is expected to be an extensive rewrite of the 2020 regulations to incorporate climate change and environmental justice objectives. Businesses with projects, now or in the future, that require federal authorizations will need to pay close attention to these regulatory revisions. The 2020 update rule intended to scale back the time and cost of producing NEPA analyses by focusing agency resources on evaluating effects that are within the agency’s ability to control and studying only those alternatives that would meet the project purpose. CEQ’s proposal eliminates these efficiencies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review

November 26, 2014 — Angela S. Haskins & Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
A California Court of Appeal expressed its concern over the due process implications of reviewing a trial court's decision that incorporated reasons that were not documented due to the absence of a court reporter. In Maxwell v. Dolezal (No. B254893, filed 11/4/14), the court cautioned that although the lack of a transcript did not preclude its review of an order sustaining a demurrer, the case was an exception because the operative complaint and demurrer were sufficient to permit effective appellate review. The plaintiff in Maxwell, acting in pro per, had filed an action for invasion of privacy and breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had used his photograph and website without his consent and that he did not receive the money, food and housing in exchange for the intellectual property rights per their agreement. The defendant demurred on the grounds that the complaint was uncertain and it could not be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract was written, oral, or implied. At the hearing on the demurrer, no court reporter was present. Nonetheless, the trial court's minute order explicitly sustained the demurrer "[f]or the reasons stated in open court," without further elaborating. The trial court also denied the plaintiff further leave to amend on the ground that he was unable to articulate in open court a reasonable basis for any additional allegations that would remedy the deficiencies. The court of appeal noted that it was "profoundly concerned about the due process implications of a proceeding in which the court, aware that no record will be made, incorporates within its ruling reasons that are not documented for the litigants or the reviewing court." Reprinted courtesy of Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Blythe Golay, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw.com; Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Give Way or Yield? The Jurisdiction of Your Contract Does Matter! (Law note)

March 05, 2015 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
Have you ever been to England? If so, you’ve likely seen their version of our “Yield” sign– the “Give Way” sign. It is a bit jarring to those from this side of the “big pond”. Similarly, contracts can be worded differently– and, interpreted differently– depending on the state that you are in. This is why it is always a good idea to have your contract or proposal vetted for the state(s) where you provide professional services. When confronted with a “give way” sign you have the general idea of yielding, but might be confused by that whole “left side of the road” thing in some countries, where if you are turning right, you must give way to all vehicles coming towards you including those turning left. Likewise, you might have a good understanding of your construction contract in one state, but not how it would be interpreted in another state. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

North Carolina, Tennessee Prepare to Start Repairing Helene-damaged Interstates

October 07, 2024 — Derek Lacey - Engineering News-Record
Damage from Hurricane Helene to interstates between North Carolina and Tennessee includes washed-out roads and bridges, landslides and extensive flooding—creating a long list of repair work needed for state transportation agencies as they prepare to rebuilding critical highways across the Appalachian Mountains. Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

February 28, 2018 — Katherine E. Miller and Michael S. Levine – Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Eleventh Circuit, in Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Adams Homes of Northwest Florida, Inc., No. 17-12660, 2018 WL 834896, at * 3-4 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018) (per curiam), recently held under Florida law that a homebuilder’s alleged failure to implement a proper drainage system that allowed for neighborhood flooding triggered a general liability insurer’s duty to defend because the allegations involved a potentially covered loss of use of covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Katherine E. Miller, Hunton & Williams and Michael S. Levine, Hunton & Williams Ms. Miller may be contacted at kmiller@hunton.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

February 03, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case. In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:

an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.

The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

May 12, 2016 — Jesse M. Sullivan & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement agreement was valid. Because the settlement agreement could potentially contain additional terms not stated in the CCP 998 Offer, the Court of Appeal held that it was not. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the 17-year-old Defendant ran a stop sign and struck his motorcycle. Plaintiff sued the 17-year-old and his father (the owner of the vehicle) for vehicular negligence and general negligence. Just after discovery closed, defendants jointly served a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise to plaintiff in the amount of $130,000. The offer contained a condition requiring that in order to accept, plaintiff must provide a “notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release. Each party will bear its own fees, costs and expenses.” Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---