SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

November 03, 2016 — Jerry Anders & Alison Russell – White and Williams LLP
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania addressed whether a lessee can be shielded from tort liability as a statutory employer and thus, immune from civil liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court in Doman v. Atlas America, Inc. held that a primary contractor who leased property for the purposes of removing and drilling natural gas is a statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Act and thus, entitled to tort immunity under Section 203 of the Act. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold Anders, White and Williams LLP and Alison Russell, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at russella@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

General Liability Alert: ADA Requirements Pertaining to Wall Space Adjacent to Interior Doors Clarified

February 26, 2015 — Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond (No. 12-56727, filed February 19, 2015) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a department store related to the necessary moving clearance for an interior restroom door pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff, Chris Kohler, is paraplegic and requires the use of a wheelchair to move in public. On two separate days in May 2011, Kohler used the restroom inside the Bed Bath & Beyond store in Riverside, California. Of relevance to the appeal, Kohler contends there was less than ten inches of strike-side wall space on the pull side of Bed Bath & Beyond’s restroom door which allegedly made it difficult for Mr. Kohler to pull open the restroom door by pushing off the strike-side wall with one hand while pulling the door handle with the other. He also contends there was less than three inches of strike-side wall or floor space on the push side of the door, making it difficult for Kohler to open the door from the push side. The door at issue did not have a latch which would stop the door from freely swinging on a hinge. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

May 04, 2020 — Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
Many businesses shift risk by requiring others with whom they do business – e.g., vendors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others – to procure insurance on their behalf by making the business an “additional insured” under the other person’s liability insurance policy. Unfortunately, insurance companies sometimes treat these additional insureds as second-class citizens, refusing to acknowledge that the additional insured has the same rights as the policyholder, who paid the premium. In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. SMG Holdings, a California appellate court removes any doubt whether these additional insureds are third-party beneficiaries entitled to the same rights – and bound by the same duties – as the entity that bought the policy. While the dispute at issue in SMG Holdings was a narrow one – i.e., whether the additional insured was bound by the policy’s arbitration clause – the implications of its holding are far ranging in ways that, in some instances, may benefit the additional insured. For example, because the additional insured is an intended beneficiary under the policy, neither the insurer nor the policyholder may do anything to impair the additional insured’s rights under the policy; if they do, they may be liable for tortiously interfering with the additional insured’s contract rights. This means that (again, by way of example) if the insurer attempts to rescind, or cancel, or amend the policy in a way that impairs the additional insured’s rights, the additional insured may have recourse. It also means that if the policyholder does something untoward that jeopardizes the additional insured’s rights under the policy, the policyholder may be liable to the additional insured for any resulting harm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com

---

CDJ’s #5 Topic of the Year: Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al.

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko of Haight Brown & Bonesteel analyzed the Beacon decision, and discussed how it affects developers and general contractors: “On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) came out with its decision in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al. The Beacon decision settled a long-standing dispute in California about whether design professionals such as architects and engineers owe a duty to non-client third parties. In finding that the plaintiffs in Beacon could state a claim against the architects of the Beacon project, the Court also sowed the seeds of change in the way contracts are structured between developers, architects, engineers, and even general contractors.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

N.J. Voters Approve $116 Million in School Construction

March 19, 2014 — Stacie Sherman – Bloomberg
New Jersey voters in 11 of 13 school districts with bond referendums this week approved $116.1 million of construction. The largest project, out of a total of $180 million proposed, failed. Voters in the Greater Egg Harbor Regional High School District rejected $37 million in renovations to three schools. The work would have increased property taxes as much as $36 a year, according to the district, which serves four towns at the Jersey Shore. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stacie Sherman, Bloomberg
Ms. Sherman may be contacted at sbabula@bloomberg.net

---

White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

January 28, 2014 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams attorneys scored a significant victory for the insurance industry on January 15, 2014, when a federal jury of four men and four women rejected a policyholder’s novel efforts to invalidate asbestos exclusions contained in insurance policies issued between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985. In General Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 04-CV-3509 (E.D. Pa.), General Refractories Company contended that asbestos exclusions in insurance policies issued by various insurance companies in the late 1970s and 1980s had not been submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance for approval prior to use and, therefore, were unenforceable. Holding a failure to obtain approval, by itself, would not be sufficient to render the exclusions unenforceable, the Honorable Edmund Ludwig sent the matter to trial to determine whether the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner implemented a policy that was uniformly executed by the Insurance Department to disapprove all asbestos exclusions between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985, such that the exclusions violated a “dominant public policy.”

Reprinted courtesy of Gregory LoCasale, White and Williams LLP

and Patricia Santelle , White and Williams LLP

Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com and Mr. LoCasale may be contacted at locasaleg@whiteandwilliams.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Rejection’s a Bear- Particularly in Construction

December 23, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As I read through this week’s cases published in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, I came across a case posing an interesting question. The question is, “If your bid is rejected along with everyone else’s, can you complain?” The short answer set out by the Rockingham County, Virginia Circuit Court is “No.” In the case of General Excavation v. City of Harrisonburg the Court looked at the Virginia Public Procurement Act’s bid protest provisions in Va. Code 2.2-4360 and 2.2-4364(C) in the context of General Excavation’s protest of the City’s failure to award it (or anyone else for that matter) the contract on which it was the low bidder. The controlling section of the statute allows a challenge to the award or proposed award of a contract. In defending the action, the City of Harrisonburg argued that, because the Procurement Act waived some of the city’s sovereign immunity, it must be read strictly. The city further argued (somewhat ironically) that, because no award of the contract was given or even proposed, General Excavation could not bring suit because it would not be challenging the “proposed award or award” of a contract. Not surprisingly, the Rockingham County court held with the City and strictly construed the statute against General Excavation in finding that General Excavation did not have the standing necessary to bring suit under the statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

May 04, 2020 — Tara C. Dudum - Newmeyer Dillion
“We are at this point truly with no guidance in history, law, or precedent. To say that there is no playbook is a gross understatement of the situation.” -Chief Justice and Chair of the California Judicial Council, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Seeking to sustain essential court services while balancing weighty considerations, including litigants’ due process rights, access to justice, and stringent health and safety orders, the California Judicial Council has adopted Emergency Rules in response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). While many of the Emergency Rules focus on criminal and juvenile dependency matters, this update highlights the Emergency Rules immediately impacting civil litigation in California state courts. The following Emergency Rules remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor lifts the state of emergency or the rule is amended or repealed by the Judicial Council: Tolling of Statutes of Limitation in Civil Actions Effective April 6, 2020, the statutes of limitation (the time period in which to bring a claim) for all civil causes of action is tolled until such time as the rule is no longer in effect. The impact of this rule is that it provides plaintiffs with more time to bring claims and extends the time period that defendants may face legal action for alleged violations of the law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tara C. Dudum, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Dudum may be contacted at tara.dudum@ndlf.com

---