Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Architecture of Tomorrow Mimics Nature to Cool the Planet

January 31, 2022 — Damian Shepherd - Bloomberg
There’s a new climate push in the building industry: regenerative architecture. The sector has been trying for years to cut its sizeable carbon footprint, which was responsible for 38% of the world’s energy-related greenhouse gases in 2019. But developers need to go beyond preventing pollution if they want to help avoid catastrophic climate change, according to Sarah Ichioka and Michael Pawlyn, co-authors of a new book titled Flourish: Design Paradigms for Our Planetary Emergency. They argue that buildings should be designed in a regenerative way — a process that mimics nature by restoring its own materials and sources of energy. It goes further than sustainable design, which seeks to reduce harm to the environment and use only essential materials. “More than half of humanity’s total historic greenhouse-gas emissions have occurred since the concept of ‘sustainability’ entered the mainstream,” Ichioka and Pawlyn write. “It is now time to embrace a new regenerative approach to design and development.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Damian Shepherd, Bloomberg

Guessing as to your Construction Damages is Not the Best Approach

November 18, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Arbitrarily guessing as to your construction damages is NOT the best approach. Sure, experts can be costly. No doubt about it. Having an expert versus guessing as to your construction damages caused by another party’s breach of contract is a no brainer. Engage an expert or, at a minimum, be in a position to competently testify as to your damages caused by another party’s breach of contract. Otherwise, the guessing is not going to get you very far as a concrete subcontractor found out in Patrick Concrete Constructors, Inc. v. Layne Christensen Co., 2018 WL 6528485 (W.D. New York 2018) where the subcontractor could not competently support its delay-related damages or change orders and, equally important, could not support that the damages were proximately caused by the general contractor’s breach of the subcontract. In this case, the concrete subcontractor entered into a subcontract to perform concrete work for a public project. The project was delayed and the general contractor was required to pay liquidated damages to the owner. Not surprisingly, the subcontractor disputed liability for delays and sued the general contractor for all of its delay-related damages “in the form of labor and materials escalation, loss of productivity, procurement and impact costs, field and home office overhead, idle equipment, inability to take on other work, lost profits, and interest.” Patrick Concrete Constructors, 2018 WL at *1. The general contractor moved for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s delay-related damages – the subcontractor’s damages were nothing but guesses and the subcontractor could not prove the general contractor was the cause of the subcontractor’s damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

November 30, 2020 — Paul A. Briganti - Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
On October 9, 2020, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decided an appeal from a trial court’s 2018 summary judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising out of asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 396 CA 18-02292, Mem. & Order (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 4th Dep’t Oct. 9, 2020). The Fourth Department reversed the trial court’s ruling that, under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit as a matter of law. The parties agreed that, because the policy language at issue required personal injury to take place “during the policy period,” “the applicable test in determining what event constitutes personal injury sufficient to trigger coverage is injury-in-fact, ‘which rests on when the injury, sickness, disease or disability actually began.’” Id. at 3 (quoting Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Rapid-American Corp., 609 N.E.2d 506, 511 (N.Y. 1993)). The Fourth Department concluded that, in resolving the issue, the trial court erred by relying on inapposite decisions in other cases where: (1) the parties had stipulated or otherwise not disputed that first exposure triggered coverage[1]; or (2) the issue had not been resolved on summary judgment, but rather at trial based on expert medical evidence[2]. The Fourth Department further explained that, even if plaintiffs here had met their initial burden on summary judgment by submitting admissible evidence that asbestos-related injury actually begins upon first exposure, the defendant-insurer’s opposition – which included affidavits of medical experts contradicting that evidence and averring instead that “harm occurs only when a threshold level of asbestos fiber or particle burden is reached that overtakes the body’s defense mechanisms” – raised a triable issue of fact. Id. at 4. The Fourth Department also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant-insurer was collaterally estopped on the “trigger” issue by a California appellate court’s decision in Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). The Fourth Department reasoned that the issues litigated in the two cases were not identical because, among other things, California and New York “apply different substantive law in determining when asbestos-related injury occurs.” Carrier, Mem. & Order at 4. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center

October 09, 2018 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
After two billion dollars and two decades, San Francisco’s newest transportation hub opened on August 11th of this year only to be closed a month later, on September 25th, after a cracked beam was discovered, according to The Real Deal. Later, workers found an additional, though smaller, crack in another beam parallel to the first. The Real Deal described the crack in the first beam: “The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) – which built and now operates the center – said the tear was 2.5 feet long and 4.5 inches deep on a 60-foot beam that holds a 5.4-acre rooftop park above a bus deck.” Steel supports are now being installed to reduce the pressure on the beams. While officials have not discovered the cause of the problem, The Real Deal reported several possibilities, including “fabrication problems, installation error, too much weight, or an issue in the initial design.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractors Sued for Slip

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A man on his way to a safety meeting slipped fell on a gangway. He’s saying that the roofing paper on the gangway was improperly secured and is now suing the contractor for negligence. Donald Methvien claims that his damages exceed $50,000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

September 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

February 10, 2020 — Kevin Sullivan - Traub Lieberman
Nationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable. In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

Struggling Astaldi Announces Defaults on Florida Highway Contracts

April 22, 2019 — Scott Judy - Engineering News-Record
Astaldi Construction Corp. announced on March 28 that it was voluntarily defaulting on four contracts with the Florida Dept. of Transportation. Included among those was a $108.3-million contract covering the 3.5-mile-long Section 7A for the $1.6-billion Wekiva Parkway project. Astaldi’s default on that project comes nearly a year after the contractor commenced work on April 1, 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES