SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Utah Digs Deep and Finds “Design Defect” Includes Pre-Construction Geotechnical Reports

November 19, 2021 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Specialist
The Supreme Court of Utah recently found that an incorrect pre-construction geotechnical engineering report is a “defective design.” Thus, actions arising from an incorrect geotechnical report are appropriately governed by Utah’s Economic Loss Statute (Statute), Utah Code Ann. § 78B-4-513(1). Hayes v. Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Servs. No. 20190764, 2021 UT 62, 2021 Utah Lexis 144, arose out of a suit filed by homeowners Kim and Nancy Hayes (the Hayeses). The Hayeses’ home was part of the Quail Hollow subdivision in Layton, Utah, which was developed by K.C. Halls Construction, Inc. (K.C. Halls). Prior to construction, K.C. Halls contracted with Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Services, Inc. (IGES) for a geotechnical report of the planned development to comply with the requirements of Layton City. The report found that “the subject site is suitable for the proposed construction” and made recommendations to ensure foundational integrity for future construction. The Hayeses ultimately purchased a lot from an agent for K.C. Halls and hired Bob Stevenson (Stevenson) to construct the home. About 14 months after the completion of construction, the Hayeses noticed cracking in their foundation walls. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

June 06, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Musings, I have often (some might say too often) discussed the fact that in Virginia (as well as other places), your construction contract language will be strictly enforced. I have also discussed the need for attorney fees provisions as well as other language in order to mitigate your risk as a contractor. A recent case from the City of Roanoke Circuit Court discussed both of these principals and their intersection. In LAM Enterprises, LLC v. Roofing Solutions, Inc., the Roanoke Court looked at a contract between LAM and Roofing Solutions, Inc. that contained two provisions of the construction contract between the parties. The first provision limited the liability of Roofing Solutions to the contract price. The second provision is a relatively typical “prevailing party” attorney fees provision in which the winner of any lawsuit would be entitled to collect its attorney fees. For the specific language of these provisions, I commend the opinion linked above for your reading. 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

---

“Time Is Money!” In Construction and This Is Why There Is a Liquidated Damages Provision

February 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In construction, the adage “Time is Money!” rings true for all parties involved on a project. This includes an owner of a project that wants a project completed on time, i.e., by a substantial completion date. While substantial completion is often defined as when an owner can use a project for its intended purpose, this intended purpose typically equates to beneficial occupancy (in new construction) and other factors as identified in the contract. The best mechanism for an owner to reinforce time and the substantial completion date is through a liquidated damages provision (also known as an LD provision) that includes a daily monetary rate for each day of delay to the substantial completion date. A liquidated damages provision is not designed, and should NEVER be designed, to serve as a penalty because then it would be unenforceable. Instead, it should be designed to reasonably compensate an owner for delay to the substantial completion date that cannot be ascertained with any reasonable degree of certainty at the time the contract is being negotiated and executed. (Liquidated damages are MUCH easier to prove than actual damages an owner may incur down the road.) As an owner, you don’t really want to assess liquidated damages because that means the project is not substantially completed on time. And, in reality, a timely completed and performing project should always be better and more profitable than a late and underperforming project. However, without the liquidated damages provision, there isn’t a great way to hold a contractor’s feet to the fire with respect to the substantial completion date. 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

---

Walmart Seeks Silicon Valley Vibe for New Arkansas Headquarters

June 18, 2019 — Matthew Boyle - Bloomberg
Walmart Inc. took inspiration from McDonald’s Corp., Apple Inc. and locations like Stanford University when designing the new headquarters that will start taking shape this summer. The 350-acre campus will be located just a few blocks east of Walmart’s current home, a patchwork of more than 20 buildings in Bentonville, Arkansas. It will feature bike paths, food trucks and outdoor meeting areas -- part of an effort to lure younger, digitally-savvy workers to northwestern Arkansas. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Boyle, Bloomberg

---

Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

April 15, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin & Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On April 4, 2014, in Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendant Pharmaceutical Corporation because the district court improperly excluded expert testimony. The three-judge panel held that the district court erred by excluding causation testimony offered by Plaintiff's expert it found to be irrelevant and unreliable. Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. In response to her development of osteoporosis after chemotherapy, Plaintiff treated with the drug Zometa for several months in 2002. Zometa is a bisphosphonate, a class of drug commonly used to treat multiple myeloma. Such drugs are generally used to reduce or eliminate the possibility of skeletal-related degeneration and injuries to which cancer patients are particularly susceptible. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation produces Zometa, which was approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2002. In 2005 after encountering issues with her jaw, it was discovered that Plaintiff had osteonecrosis near three of her teeth. The oral specialists treating Plaintiff did so under the assumption that she was suffering from bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw ("BRONJ"), a condition recognized by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons ("AAOMS"). Plaintiff's BRONJ healed in 2008 - three years after beginning treatment. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought suit against Novartis for strict products liability, negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, and loss of consortium. In support of her claims, Plaintiff offered her expert's testimony on ONJ and BRONJ, and on the causal link between plaintiff's bisphosphonate treatment and later development of BRONJ. Novartis filed a Daubert motion to exclude the specific causation testimony of Plaintiff's experts and a motion seeking summary judgment. The district court granted both motions on the basis that Plaintiff's expert testimony was irrelevant and unreliable. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Oklahoma Finds Policy Can Be Assigned Post-Loss

April 26, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Oklahoma joined the majority of court in finding that after a loss occurs, the insured can assign the policy to another. Johnson v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co., 2020 Okla LEXIS 118 (Okla. Dec. 15, 2020). Johnson's property was damaged in a storm. She filed a claim with her insurer. She also executed an assignment of her claim in order to repair the property with the execution of assignment to Triple Diamond Construction LLC. An appraiser retained by Triple Diamond determined the storm damage was $36,346.06. The insurer paid only $21,725.36 for the loss. Johnson and Triple Diamond sued the insurer for breach of contract, seeking $14,620.70, not inclusive of interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The insurer filed a motion to dismiss, or an alternative motion for summary judgment to dismiss Triple Diamond as a party. The insurer argued that both the policy and an Oklahoma statute barred the assignment. The district court granted the insurer's motion. 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

---

Massive Wildfire Near Boulder, Colo., Destroys Nearly 1,000 Homes and Businesses

January 03, 2022 — Mark Shaw - Engineering News-Record
A wildfire, driven by wind gusts up to 105 mph, swept through 6,000 acres in suburban neighborhoods east of Boulder, Colo., destroying 991 homes and damaging 127 others in the towns of Superior and Louisville, according to estimates from the Boulder County sheriff’s office. Reprinted courtesy of Mark Shaw, Engineering News-Record Mr. Shaw may be contacted at shawm@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

June 28, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
The federal district court assumed there was "property damage" caused by an "occurrence," but found the business risk exclusions barred coverage for construction defect claims. Hubbell v. Carney Bros. Constr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68331 (D. Colo. May 13, 2013). The plaintiffs entered a construction contract with the insured general contractor to build a home. After the project was one-third completed, plaintiffs terminated the contract. Experts hired by plaintiffs found a failure to properly site the residence, as the house was constructed 48 feet from the intended location; violations of county height restrictions; failure to follow building plans, which were themselves deficient; and an improperly poured foundation. The experts estimated that the costs of repairing the property to be between $1.3 and $1.5 million, and that the cost of demolishing the structure and rebuilding it would be between $1.1 and $1.3 million. After plaintiff filed suit, a stipulated judgment of $1.952 million was entered. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---