Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane . . . No, It’s a Drone. Long Awaited FAA Drone Regulations Finally Take Flight

September 22, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
It’s a bird. It’s a plane. No, it’s a drone. Also known as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or unmanned aircraft (UA). And, technically, they’ve been around a long time, since at least 1849 when the Australians attacked Italy with unmanned balloons loaded with explosives. Even a young Marilyn Monroe, when she was known simply as “Norma Jean,” worked at a company called Radioplane making unmanned aircrafts during World War II. Since then, as technology has advanced, which, in turn, has made the cost of older technology go down, what was once old, is now new again. Drones are making regular appearances in the movies (think the Divergent Series: Allegiant). The paparazzi (who are apparently tired of getting punched in the face) are using them. And some day, perhaps very soon, they may just be delivering your packages (think Amazon Prime Air). One of the earliest adopters of drones outside the military, however, has been the construction industry which has used drones to track the progress of construction projects and conduct site surveys such as this one showing the progress of Apple’s new campus in Cupertino[.] 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

PCL Sues Big Bank for $30M in Claimed NJ Mall Unpaid Work

July 16, 2023 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
Denver-based PCL Construction Services sued JPMorgan Chase Bank in federal court earlier this month for $30 million in claimed unpaid work and interest related to construction of a $5-billion northern New Jersey mall and entertainment center that also faces other financial challenges since its COVID-19-impacted opening in 2019. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arguing Cardinal Change is Different than Proving Cardinal Change

April 05, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The cardinal change doctrine has become a popular doctrine for a contractor to argue under but remains an extremely difficult doctrine to support and prove. Arguing cardinal change is one thing. Proving cardinal change is entirely different. As shown below, this is a doctrine with its origins under federal government contract law with arguments extending outside of the federal government contract arena. For this reason, the cases referenced below are not federal government contract law cases, but are cases where the cardinal change doctrine has been argued (even though these cases cite to federal government contract law cases). A party argues cardinal change to demonstrate that the other party (generally, the owner) materially breached the contract based on the cardinal change. In reality, a party argues cardinal change because they have cost overruns they are looking to recover and this doctrine may give them an argument to do so. But it is important to recognize the distinction between raising it as an argument and the expectation that this (difficult doctrine to prove) will carry the day. 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

Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors

March 23, 2020 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
President Trump has promoted his campaign agenda—bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States (especially jobs relating or pertaining to the steel industry.) To do this, he has strengthened domestic preferences through the Buy America and Buy American Acts.[1] 1. Buy America Act: The Buy America Act refers to a collection of domestic contract restrictions pertaining to the U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration projects (highway, mass transit and other transportation projects). The USDOT grants provided to state and local governments prohibit the federal government from obligating funds unless the steel, iron and manufactured products used in the projects are produced in the U.S. Generally, Buy America applies to projects where USDOT provides part of the funding, applies to steel, iron and manufactured products, and requires that “all manufacturing processes, including application of a coating, for these materials…occur in the United States.”

Buy American: Buy American is critical for construction contractors because FAR 52.225-9 requires that all federal construction contracts under approximately $7 million[2] contain a clause which mandates that contractors use “only domestic construction material in performing [the] contract.” [Note: This requirement is not limited to steel and steel products, as the Buy America Act is.]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

December 02, 2015 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Glenn T. Barger, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., & David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin
As anticipated in a prior CGDRB 2015 Bulletin that discussed the Fifth Appellate District Court’s noteworthy opinion in McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist), the California Supreme Court has granted the petition for review of the McMillin Albany decision. The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict of authority presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court’s opinion in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and the Fifth Appellate District Court’s rejection of the Liberty Mutual holding in McMillin Albany. In Liberty Mutual, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims [violations of SB 800’s building standards] that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB 800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all construction defect claims arising out new residential construction are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act [SB800], including specifically, the requirement that the claimant provide the builder with notice and an opportunity to repair prior to filing a lawsuit. According to the Court, SB 800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. The holdings in Liberty Mutual and McMillin Albany present a conflict of authority that the California Supreme Court has appropriately deemed worthy of review. The parties will now be permitted to file briefs on the merits and amicus briefs will certainly be submitted by the defense and plaintiff bars. Our firm will be closely monitoring this case, the outcome of which will significantly impact pre-litigation construction defect claims going forward. We will provide updates as to further activities and the Supreme Court’s decision. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger, Jon A. Turigliatto and David A. Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

October 30, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & Latosha M. Ellis - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
North Dakota’s highest court delivered a blow to Mid-Continent Casualty Company in Borsheim Builders Supply, Inc. v. Manger Insurance Co., ruling that a contract between a policyholder and general contractor fit the insured contract exception of contractual liability. Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policies generally exclude an insured’s contractual assumption of another party’s liability. The exclusion typically contains an exception for what is known as an “insured contract.” However, many policyholders and insurance claims personnel often miss the significance of the insured contract exception. This was the case in Borsheim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

Congratulations to Arezoo Jamshidi & Michael Parme Selected to the 2022 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars List

April 04, 2022 — Arezoo Jamshidi & Michael C. Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Congratulations to Arezoo Jamshidi and Michael Parme who were selected for the 2022 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. The 2022 San Diego Rising Stars list is an honor reserved for lawyers who exhibit excellence in practice. Only 2.5% of attorneys in San Diego receive this distinction. Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

November 04, 2019 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements. The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes. With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:

The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
- The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
- A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
- Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES