Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

May 10, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, the Virginia General Assembly has finished its yearly run through the legislative process and this year there are a few highlights for those of us in the construction industry. It is always interesting to see what issues are the big ones that get a lot of attention. This year the changes impacted public procurement, VOSH fines, and employment of unlicensed individuals on a job site. These changes to the various statutes that impact the day to day operation of the construction industry in Virginia will go into effect on July 1, 2017. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Construction Defect Scam Tied to Organized Crime?

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the initial tip-off came from Scott Canepa, a construction defect attorney who alerted the FBI about Leon Benzer’s activities in taking over homeowner boards. Canepa learned that Nancy Quon was taking part in the scheme and went to the FBI with the information. After FBI officials met with Canepa, they launched an investigation, which they named “Operation GrandMaster.” Although a Benzer associate stated that Benzer claimed not to have ties to organized crime, and according to the Review-Journal, “preferred to think of himself as ‘just a bully,’” the case involves connections to a number of figures with ties to organized crime. Benzer with associated with John V. Spilotro, a lawyer whose uncle was an alleged overseer for Chicago organized crime operating in Las Vegas in the 70s and 80s. Another conspirator, Paul Citelli, reportedly has ties to organized crime in Buffalo. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

January 20, 2020 — Brian S. Wood & Alex Gorelik - ConsensusDocs
In April 2018, the Department of Justice announced a $5M settlement reached in its lawsuit against former professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong. While the fallout from Armstrong’s latently-admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) was well-publicized, including lost sponsorship deals, stripped Tour de France titles, and damage to his reputation, few were aware of Armstrong’s exposure to liability and criminal culpability for false claims against the government. The DOJ’s announcement reminded Armstrong and the rest of us of the golden rule of dealing with the government: honesty is the best policy. The corollary to that rule is that dishonesty is costly. Armstrong’s liability stemmed from false statements (denying the use of PEDs) he made, directly and through team members and other representatives, to U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) representatives and to the public. USPS was the primary sponsor of the grand tour cycling team led by Armstrong. The government alleged in the lawsuit that Armstrong’s false statements were made to induce USPS to renew and increase its sponsorship fees, in violation of the False Claims Act. The Statute Enacted in 1863, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) was originally aimed at stopping and deterring frauds perpetrated by contractors against the government during the Civil War. Congress amended the FCA in the years since its enactment, but its primary focus and target have remained those who present or directly induce the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The current FCA imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly presents “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal Government. A “claim” now includes direct requests to the Government for payment, as well as reimbursement requests made to the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs (such as Medicare). Thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have also enacted laws imposing penalties for false claims against state agencies and their subdivisions, with most of these laws modelled after the federal FCA. Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP and Alex Gorelik, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

May 20, 2019 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Southern District of Georgia recently ruled that Evanston Insurance Company is not entitled to summary judgment on whether its policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage for the release of nitrogen into a warehouse. The case stems from an incident at Xytex Tissue Services, LLC’s warehouse, where Xytex stored biological material at low temperatures. Xytex used an on-site “liquid nitrogen delivery system” to keep the material properly cooled. This system releases liquid nitrogen, which would vaporize into nitrogen gas and cool the biological material. On February 5, 2017, a Xytex employee, Deputy Greg Meagher, entered the warehouse to investigate activated motion detectors and burglar alarms. Deputy Meagher was overcome by nitrogen gas and died as a result. Following Deputy Meagher’s death, his heirs filed suit against Xytex and other defendants. Evanston denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion in its policy. Evanston then brought a declaratory judgment action to confirm its coverage position. In denying Evanston’s summary judgment motion, the Southern District of Georgia reasoned that the type of injury sustained is essential in analyzing whether the pollution exclusion applies. Specifically, Xytex argued, and the court agreed, that the underlying lawsuit alleged that the bodily injury was caused by a lack of oxygen, not exposure to nitrogen. The court also distinguished prior decisions, explaining that injury caused by a lack of oxygen is not a contamination or irritation of the body in the same way as injury resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide or lead. The court also found that Xytex “reasonably expected that liability related to a nitrogen leak would be insured.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine and Alexander D. Russo Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

David McLain Recognized Among the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America© for Construction Law

October 19, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
David McLain is a founding member of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell. Mr. McLain has over 22 years of experience and is well known for his work in the defense of the construction industry, particularly in the area of construction defect litigation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the CLM Claims College - School of Construction, which is the premier course for insurance, industry, and legal professionals. Law Week Colorado recently named Mr. McLain as the 2019 People’s Choice for Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants. HHMR is highly regarded for its expertise in construction law and the litigation of construction-related claims, including the defense of large and complex construction defect matters. Our attorneys provide exceptional service to individuals, business owners, Fortune 500 companies, and the insurance industry. The firm is experienced in providing legal support throughout trials and alternative dispute resolution such as mediations and arbitrations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
This August, permits were taken out for $102.3 million of commercial construction projects, a 95% increase over last August’s $52.4 million. Meanwhile, residential construction was up by a third, jumping from $205.6 million to $274.1 million. Overall that sent construction up by 46% in the Orlando area. The construction industry is a major one in the Orlando area and its recovery provides some hope for the region. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC

February 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a press release on PR Newswire, Columbus, Ohio law firm McDonalds Hopkins LLC is merging with firm Welin, O’Shaughnessy + Scheaf. McDonalds Hopkins LLC is “a business advisory and advocacy law firm with a more than 80-year history.” They are looking to expand their “Columbus presence” by the merger with “the boutique firm” that specializes in construction law, complex business litigation and oil and gas litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage

July 16, 2023 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Dardar v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 2023 IL App ( 5th ) 220357-U, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals addressed an insured’s suit against her property insurer after the carrier denied coverage for a fire loss. The property in question was inherited by the Plaintiff from her brother and was in the process of being renovated at the time of the fire loss. After the fire, the Plaintiff’s homeowners carrier denied the claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not occupying the property at the time of the fire and was therefore not covered under the terms of the policy. It was undisputed that the Plaintiffs never lived in or physically occupied the home. Correspondingly, the carrier denied the claim on the basis that the policy only covered the Plaintiff’s "residence premises," which was defined as: (1) the one-family dwelling where you reside; (2) the two, three, or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the units; or (3) that part of any other building in which you reside. The carrier determined that the Plaintiff did not “reside” at the property and therefore were not covered under the policy terms. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES