Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Proposed Legislation for Losses from COVID-19 and Limitations on the Retroactive Impairment of Contracts

July 27, 2020 — Shaia Araghi - Newmeyer Dillion
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused most businesses to temporarily close and, as a result, sustain significant losses. Various states are contemplating the passage of legislation to require carriers to cover claims arising from COVID-19, but case law regarding the constitutionality of such legislation is conflicting. Depending on the facts surrounding retroactive legislation, states may be able to pass an enforceable law leading to coverage. Pennsylvania’s Proposed Legislation for Business Interruption Losses Pennsylvania is one of many states that has proposed legislation to override language in business interruption policies and require coverage from insurance carriers. Pennsylvania House Bill 2372 proposes that any insurance policy that covers loss or property damage, including loss of use and business interruption, must cover the policyholder’s losses from the COVID-19 pandemic.1 It applies to insureds with fewer than 100 employees.2 To enhance its chances to pass constitutional challenges, the House Bill also provides for potential relief and reimbursement through the state’s commissioner.3 Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1127 is broader than House Bill 2372 and most bills proposed in other states and would require indemnification for nearly all insureds.4 The Senate Bill makes important legislative findings and notes that insurance is a regulated industry.5 It essentially provides that an insurance policy insuring against a loss relating to property damage, including business interruption, shall be construed to cover loss or property damage due to COVID-19 or due to a civil authority order resulting from COVID-19.1 The proposed bill redefines “property damage” to include: (1) the presence of a person positively identified as having been infected with COVID-19; (2) the presence of at least one person positively identified as having been infected with COVID-19 in the same municipality where the property is located; or (3) the presence of COVID-19 having otherwise been detected in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shaia Araghi, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Araghi may be contacted at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com

Supreme Court Holds That Prevailing Wage Statute is Constitutional

November 28, 2022 — Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
The Supreme Court recently held[1] that Senate Bill 5493 (“SSB 5493”), which alters the method for how the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ industrial statistician sets the prevailing wages for employees on public works projects, is constitutional. Prior to the enactment of SSB 5493, the industrial statistician set prevailing wages for each trade on a county-by-county basis based on either the majority or average wage rate in that specific county. Following SSB 5493’s enactment, the industrial statistician would be required to adopt the prevailing wage rate for a county solely based on collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) for that trade. If a trade has more than one CBA in a county, the highest wage rate will prevail. SSB 5493 has negative impacts on employers because it creates the potential for wage rates to be set based on CBAs that represent the minority of hours worked in a county. The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, provides an example of this. AGC began negotiations with an operators’ union for a master labor agreement, which would cover almost all operating engineers in 16 Washington State counties. When they could not reach an agreement, Local 302 called a strike against the employers. After one week of the strike, Local 302 approached small employers and negotiated a side agreement. Some of these employers were also card-carrying members of Local 302. A few weeks later, AGC ratified a new agreement with Local 302 that included lower wages than the side agreements. Because the rates in the side agreement were higher, those wage rates became the prevailing wage in 16 counties even though they represented a minority of the hours worked. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Ingram may be contacted at cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com

The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

December 30, 2013 — W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
The case of Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 452374 (D. Colo. February 6, 2013) is instructive as an example of both the confusion and resulting escalation of litigation that can result from a lack of clarity in settlement negotiations. This is particularly true where parties settle outside of their insurance coverage, and/or without notifying their insurer(s), which have denied coverage. The case involved coverage litigation following settlement of a multi-party construction defect case involving the Rivergate multi-family residential development in Durango, Colorado. The condominium owners association sued, among others, the developer (Rivergate Lofts Partners, hereafter “RLP”) and the general contractor (Genex Construction, LLC, hereafter “Genex”). This follow-on case involved the insurers for RLP (“Hartford”) and Genex (“Bituminous”). The coverage dispute was complicated by the Bituminous allegations that Hartford insured Genex in its alleged role as a manager for RLP, as part of Hartford’s insurance of RLP more generally. The underlying facts were that Hartford denied insurance coverage and defense to Genex/Bituminous. The underlying construction defect case went to mediation, with the COA, RLP, and Genex all in attendance with their respective insurer representatives, and coverage counsel. While the evolving facts of that mediation were later disputed as to their motives, intentions, and the contemporaneous knowledge of the parties, the facts reflected in documents were fairly clear. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

April 20, 2020 — Curtis W. Martin, Patrick J. Greene, Jr. & Levi W. Barrett - Peckar & Abramson
“Effective tomorrow … the City is suspending all regular activity at construction sites in Boston.” This was just one of the surprises that greeted contractors last week. Contractors and owners with projects across the country are scrambling to comply with mandated governmental suspensions. Project participants should begin contingency planning for possible project shutdowns. Reacting to Suspension Your legal rights and remedies will be largely determined by your contract and the laws applicable to it. But some basic principles will be applicable depending on the source of the suspension. Suspension by the Owner: An owner work suspension suggests review of the contract’s suspension of work clause. Federal contractors would look to the FAR Suspension of Work clause, FAR 52.242-14, but that is applicable if the suspension is by the Contracting Officer; the US would argue that a systemic suspension was a sovereign act and outside the FAR clause. Contractors for private work and state or municipal work may have contractual suspension of work clauses. At least some suspension clauses provide relief for time and money. Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson attorneys Curtis W. Martin, Patrick J. Greene and Levi W. Barrett Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Greene may be contacted at pgreene@pecklaw.com Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period

April 20, 2017 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
With the session more than halfway through, the Colorado Legislature’s 2017 attempts at meaningful construction defect reform may fail again. This year, the Legislature did not attempt a single-bill construction defect overhaul like those that have failed over the last half-decade. Rather, it has sought to enact reforms on a piecemeal basis, with several smaller bills addressing specific issues that have been affecting condominium construction along Colorado’s booming Front Range. This new approach appears to be headed towards much the same outcome as the failed efforts of the past. House Bill 1169 would have given developers a statutory right to repair before being sued by homeowners, and Senate Bill 156 would mandate arbitration or mediation. Both have been assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee (often viewed as the “bill-kill committee”), and have little chance of being resuscitated this session. This was also the fate of House Bill 1279, but bipartisan support had many believing that it still had a chance of passing—at least until last week. House Bill 1279 would require an executive board of a homeowners association to satisfy several prerequisites before suing a developer or builder, namely to (1) notify all unit owners and the developer or builder against whom the lawsuit is being considered; (2) call an association meeting where the builder or developer could present relevant facts and arguments; and (3) get approval from the majority of the unit owners after providing detailed disclosures about the lawsuit, including the potential costs and benefits thereof. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

Historical Long-Tail Claims in California Subject to a Vertical Exhaustion Rule

December 03, 2024 — Will S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

California’s complex saga of long-tail injury coverage under general liability policies took an interesting turn in the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Cement.¹ In Truck, the court made it clear that Insureds can access excess policy limits without first exhausting all triggered underlying primary coverage, provided the underlying limits for the same policy period have been exhausted.

A Brief Summary of the History of Coverage for Long-Tail Claims in California²

Understanding the contextual significance of Truck requires a brief survey of California’s gradually developed case law with respect to long-tail progressive injury and damage claims. A “long-tail claim” typically involves progressively manifesting damage, injury, or disease that develops over a period of multiple years. Because general liability insurance is traditionally triggered based on the timing of when bodily injury or property damage occurs, the progressive nature of these claims has led many courts to analyze when injury or damage occurs in these claims. In doing so, California courts have generally found that these injuries occur across numerous years, thereby triggering numerous policies.³

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Will S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at WBennett@sdvlaw.com

Chicago Makes First Major Update to City's Building Code in 70 Years

August 06, 2019 — Engineering News-Record
The City Council recently voted to adopt a major update to the Chicago Building Code, its first in 70 years, that will better align it with the International Code Council’s International Building Code. Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) said the new code will spur and enhance building projects by adding more flexibility and options for construction materials. Engineering News-Record Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado Governor Polis’s Executive Order D 2020 101: Keeping Up with Colorado’s Shifting Eviction Landscape during COVID-19

July 27, 2020 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
On March 5, 2020, Colorado Governor Polis issues executive order D 2020 012, which among other things imposed temporary limitations on evictions, foreclosures, and public utility disconnections. After being amended and extended three times (through April 30, 2020 via D 2020-0131, then for an additional 30 days via D 2020 051, and finally for an additional 15 days from May 29, 2020 via D 2020 088), this executive order expired on Saturday, June 13, 2020. In its stead, the Governor issued a more limited Executive Order—D 2020 101 (the “Order”)—which is effective through July 13, 2020. Most significantly, this current Order requires landlords to “provide tenants with thirty (30) days’ notice of any default for non payment” before they can initiate or file an eviction action (known as an “action for forcible entry and detainer,” or “FED”) and clarifies that tenants shall have the opportunity to cure any default for nonpayment during this period. The current Order also prohibits landlords and lenders “from charging any late fees or penalties for any breach of the terms of a lease or rental agreement due to non-payment” if the fees were incurred between May 1, 2020 and June 13, 2020. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES