Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

November 13, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted, in part, the insurer's motion to exclude portions of expert testimony. Tundra M. Holdings, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139952 (D. Alaska Aug. 10, 2023). Plaintiff alleged a building it owned suffered damages consisting of building roof failure due to snow load. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Markel for its loss. Plaintiff hired an engineering firm to conduct an inspection. The recommendation was to install snow guards and that 28 rafters be replaced with new beams. The evaluation did not state that the recommendation was required by law or ordinance. Nor did the evaluation make mention of replacing the metal roof on the building or anything about the water system or sprinkler system. Plaintiff then obtained an estimate of $687,500 for roof repair/replacement, store front repair, a sprinkler system installer and a water system upgrade. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period

September 09, 2019 — Christopher Raney - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Firm’s insurer client on an issue of first impression in Texas. The issue before the trial court was whether, under Texas law, an insurer is required to demonstrate prejudice resulting from an insured’s failure to comply with an agreed term set in an endorsement to the parties’ insurance contract establishing a specific time limit for an insured to give the insurer notice of a claim. The case involved alleged damage to an insured’s commercial property from a hailstorm. The insured did not report the alleged loss to its insurer until approximately 17 months after the date of loss. The insurer denied the claim based on a one-year notice requirement in a policy endorsement. The Texas Windstorm or Hail Loss Conditions Amendment Endorsement stated that:

In addition to your obligation to provide us with prompt notice of loss or damage, with respect to any claim where notice of the claim is reported to us more than one year after the reported date of loss or damage, this policy shall not provide coverage for such claims.

The insured sued the insurer in Houston federal court, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The insured argued the insurer was required to show prejudice from the insured’s late notice; the insurer argued that a showing of prejudice was not required. The trial court recognized that this issue had not been decided by the Texas Supreme Court of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Raney, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Raney may be contacted at craney@grsm.com

Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

March 22, 2021 — Dirk Haire, Adam Hamilton & Dana Molinari - ConsensusDocs
A common misconception by many government officials is that a design-builder is always responsible for every design error or omission on a design-build project. This article examines the actual liability standard applied by the courts and boards of contract appeals when a design defect arises on a federal design-build project. Background: Design-Build Contracts and the Spearin Doctrine Design-build contracts combine the design and construction elements of a construction project into one contract. Design-build contracts often include two types of specifications: design and performance. Design specifications may set forth various parameters, such as precise measurements, tolerances, and materials. In doing so, the specifications create a fixed “roadmap” governing a contractor’s performance of the project. Performance specifications, on the other hand, set forth “operational characteristics” to achieve a particular objective or standard, but generally leave the details to the contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk Haire, Fox Rothschild LLP, Adam Hamilton, Fox Rothschild LLP and Dana Molinari, Fox Rothschild LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@foxrothschild.com Mr. Hamilton may be contacted at ahamilton@foxrothschild.com Ms. Molinari may be contacted at dmolinari@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

EEOC Builds on Best Practice Guidance Regarding Harassment Within the Construction Industry

August 12, 2024 — Abby M. Warren & Christohper A. Costain - Construction Law Zone
In June 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance tailored to the construction industry concerning harassment in the workplace or at the jobsite. The guidance is important for construction industry leaders and employers to understand how to prevent and remedy harassment in the workplace — more than a third of all EEOC discrimination charges filed between 2019 and 2023 asserted harassment. The guidance represents the EEOC’s latest effort in executing its Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2024 to 2028, which, in part, focuses on combatting systemic harassment and eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, particularly for underrepresented groups in certain industries, including women in construction, through the EEOC’s enforcement efforts. In this article, we highlight key principles and practices from this guidance Leadership and Accountability The guidance reiterates that consistent and demonstrated leadership is critical to creating and maintaining a workplace culture where harassment is unacceptable and strictly prohibited. Worksite leaders, including project owners, crew supervisors, and union stewards, are each expected to regularly communicate that harassment is intolerable through several suggested efforts. Reprinted courtesy of Abby M. Warren, Robinson+Cole and Christohper A. Costain, Robinson+Cole Ms. Warren may be contacted at awarren@rc.com Mr. Costain may be contacted at ccostain@rc.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Problems May Delay Bay Bridge

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Faulty bolts could lead to a delay in the opening of the Bay Bridge. Caltrans noticed problems with bolts and found that the bolts had cracked. Of the 98 bolts already tightened, 30 have failed. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, workers will be tightening all 288 bolts and then testing them. According to Tony Anziano, Caltrans’s toll bridge program manager, repairs could take one or two months. Mr. Anziano noted that the manufacturer might be responsible for part of the expense, but that the budget for the bridge also has funds set aside for unanticipated repairs. The bolts were supplied by Dyson, an Ohio company, but it was clear whether Dyson manufactured the bolts or simply marketed them. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

September 30, 2019 — William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy, & Denis Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Congratulations to Haight’s attorneys who were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition Los Angeles, California William G. Baumgaertner for personal injury and product liability litigation for plaintiffs and defendants Michael Leahy for insurance law Denis Moriarty for insurance law Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy and Denis J. Moriarty Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at wbaum@hbblaw.com Mr. Leahy may be contacted at mleahy@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at dmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

July 06, 2020 — Christian Singewald & Rochelle Gumapac - White and Williams LLP
The Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law. Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death. In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Unwavering Un-waivable Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability in Arizona

January 23, 2023 — Robert A. Henry & Emily R. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Arizona Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on the scope of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (the “implied warranty”) in contracts between homebuyers and builder/vendors that provides clear guidance of the law in this area, specifically on the issue of whether the implied warranty can be waived or disclaimed. It is also an interesting and helpful read for those who engage in new home residential sales and real estate transactions generally. The case: Zambrano v. M & RC, II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022). The takeaway holding: the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability cannot, under any circumstances, be disclaimed or waived. From a practice perspective, the foregoing is likely all one needs to ultimately know. However, the majority opinion (authored by Justice Timmer) and the dissent (authored by Justice King, and joined by Justice Bolick) are in these authors’ opinions worth a read for those who want a better understanding of the contours of how “public policy” plays into the analysis of the enforceability of contract terms, especially in the real estate context and even more particularly in connection with contracts for the sale of new homes. The careful analysis of both the majority opinion and the dissent provides an excellent history of the implied warranty, the public policy behind it, and its scope and application in the context of competing public policies, most notably the freedom to contract. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. Henry, Snell & Wilmer and Emily R. Parker, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com Ms. Parker may be contacted at eparker@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES