Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

New Megablimp to Deliver to Remote Alaskan Construction Sites

January 13, 2017 — Ryan W. Sternoff - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Blog
For nearly 20 years, Lockheed Martin has been working on developing a “Hybrid Airship” that may transform the ability to construct facilities in remote project locations.[i] On September 13, 2016, the Daily Journal of Commerce reported that the first of these “Hybrid Airships,” which can land in snow, ice, gravel, and water, are set to deliver from a facility operated by PRL Logistics in Kenai, Alaska, beginning in 2019.[ii] PRL will be operating the blimps in partnership with UK-based Straightline Aviation who placed the first order for the airships this year. According to PRL, the hope is that the airships will provide low cost solutions for moving freight in Alaska, where runways and roads are not always available. The helium-lifted behemoth blimps have space for 47,000 pounds of cargo and 18 passengers and cost about $40 million dollars. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan W. Sternoff, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Sternoff may be contacted at rsternoff@ac-lawyers.com

Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

March 26, 2014 — David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith-Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Purcell v. Schweitzer (No. D063435 - filed February 24, 2014, certified for publication March 17, 2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld an order setting aside a stipulated default judgment for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim which had been agreed to by the parties to a settlement agreement, finding that it constituted an unenforceable penalty because the amount bore no reasonable relationship to the settling party’s actual damages resulting from a breach of the settlement agreement. In an agreement settling a breach of contract action seeking $85,000 in damages based on an unpaid debt, the plaintiff agreed to settle the claim and to accept $38,000 in 24 monthly installments, including interest on the unpaid principal at 8.5 percent. The agreement provided that payments were due on the first day of each month and to be considered “timely,” had to be received by the fifth day of each month. If any payment was not made on time, it was to be considered a breach of the entire settlement agreement, making the entire $85,000 original liability due pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment for such amount. The stipulation included language to the effect that the $85,000 figure accounted for the “economics” of further proceedings. The agreement also specified that the foregoing provision did not constitute an unlawful “penalty” or “forfeiture” and that defendant waived any right to an appeal and any right to contest or seek to set aside such a judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Smith may be contacted at gsmith@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
CityCenter has raised a scenario out of a blockbuster movie in which an earthquake causes the tower to fall onto the Cosmopolitan or the Crystals mall, leading to lawsuits, investigations, and “plummeting stock prices.” But that didn’t sway Clark County District Judge Elizabeth Gonzales from putting a hold on the demolition of the tower. FM Global, CityCenter’s insurer, has requested more time to examine the building’s problems in order to determine how to act on CityCenter’s claim of total loss. Tutor Perini, the company that built the tower, agrees with the delay, since any monies from FM Global would reduce Tutor Perini’s liability. If FM Global denies the claim, the price for the builder would go up, should they fail at trial. That trial is now scheduled for April. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What You Need to Know About the Recently Enacted Infrastructure Bill

December 06, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This past week, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The bill, commonly referred to as the Infrastructure Bill, provides for $1.2 trillion in spending over the next five years on the nation’s infrastructure and is one of two major legislative initiatives of the Biden Administration, the other being Biden’s $1.75 billion Build Back Better Bill focused on “soft” assets such money to fight climate change, for universal free preschool, for paid family and medical leave, etc. While the Infrastructure Bill contains its fair share of pet projects, economists and historians generally agree that the Infrastructure Bill is the largest investment in the nation’s infrastructure since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” in 1933. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

September 07, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Just as Hurricane Harvey departs the state, a new law in Texas, effective September 1, 2017, is going to make it more difficult for home and business owners to pursue claims against their insurance companies. Prior Texas law imposed liability on an insurer who violated the Insurance Code for the amount of the claim, interest on the amount of the claim at an annual interest rate of 18 percent, and reasonable attorney fees. H.B. 1774 was recently enacted to address legal actions for claims arising from damage to or loss of property due to hailstorms, lightening, wind, hurricane, rainstorm and other natural events. The bill creates additional procedural hurdles before a policy holder can file a lawsuit against the insurer. A written notice must be provided to the insurer at least 61 days before filing a lawsuit. The notice must include a statement of the acts giving rise to the claim, the specific amount alleged to be owed, and amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees already incurred by the policy holder. Once notice is received, the statute allows the insurers to send a written request to inspect, photograph, or evaluate the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

October 16, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In 2010, the Virginia Supreme Court held in Uniwest Const., Inc. v. Amtech Elevator Servs., Inc., that Va. Code Sec. 11-4.1 renders completely void and unenforceable any indemnification provision in a construction contract between a contractor and subcontractor that seeks to indemnify the indemnified party from its own negligent acts. In short, the Virginia Supreme Court stated that such overly broad provisions violate Section 11-4.1. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia Federal District Court examined a provision in a contract between a designer/architect and a contractor or owner on a project. In Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Lessard Design Inc. the Court examined the application of Section 11-4.1 to the following provision of a design contract where Lessard, the indemnitor, agreed to:

[i]ndemnify, defend and hold the Owner, Owner’s Developer, and Owner’s and Owner’s Developer’s wholly owned affiliates and the agents, employees and officers of any of them harmless from and against any and all losses, liabilities, expenses, claims, fines and penalties, costs and expenses, including, but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs relating to the services performed by the Architect hereunder . . .

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

In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

July 05, 2021 — Aneta B. Freeman – Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb News Alert
In one of the first civil jury trials to proceed live in Los Angeles Superior Court during Covid, Aneta Freeman obtained a rare directed verdict and nonsuit in a complex, high exposure action, after seven days of trial. The dismissal was obtained after the parties rested after the liability phase of the bifurcated trial. Ms. Freeman represented a general contractor in an action in which Plaintiff alleged that the general contractor and the County of Los Angeles (which was dismissed earlier on statutory immunity grounds) created a dangerous condition when they allegedly allowed mosquitos to breed in 2015 during construction at a flood retention basin in Marina Del Rey. Plaintiff contracted West Nile Virus, and subsequently developed myasthenia gravis and a myriad of other conditions and ailments. Plaintiff relied heavily on a 2015 report from the Los Angeles West Vector Control District which suggested that the construction was the source of mosquitos which resulted in a “cluster” of West Nile Virus cases in the Marina Del Rey and surrounding areas. In pretrial motions, Ms. Freeman successfully excluded that report, opinion testimony from the vector control former executive director, narrowed the scope of plaintiff’s entomologist testimony, and excluded Brad Avrit from testifying for the Plaintiff on construction standard of care. The matter proceeded with a stipulated a 10 person jury, and all participants socially distanced and masked throughout the trial. Witnesses appeared live, with the exception of Plaintiff’s entomologist, portions of whose video deposition were played. Following seven days of trial after both parties rested, Judge Mark Young granted the general contractor’s nonsuit and also, in the alternative, a directed a verdict for our client. Plaintiff had demanded $10,000,000 of the County and the general contractor globally prior to trial, and $5,000,000 from the general contractor. The general contractor issued two CCP 998s, which were ignored by Plaintiff. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aneta B. Freeman, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb
Ms. Freeman may be contacted at afreeman@cgdrlaw.com

Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy

July 01, 2019 — Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
What do you do when your house falls out from underneath you? Over the last few years, homeowners in northeastern Connecticut have been suing their insurers for denying coverage for claims based on deteriorating foundations in their homes. The lawsuits, which have come to be known as the “crumbling concrete cases,” stem from the use of faulty concrete to pour foundations of approximately 35,000 homes built during the 1980s and 1990s. In order to save their homes, thousands of homeowners have been left with no other choice but to lift their homes off the crumbling foundations, tear out the defective concrete and replace it. The process typically costs between $150,000 to $350,000 per home, and homeowner’s insurers are refusing to cover the costs. As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Connecticut homeowners in both state and federal court. Of those cases, three related lawsuits against Allstate Insurance Company were the first to make it to the federal appellate level.1 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was tasked with deciding one common issue: whether the “collapse” provision in the Allstate homeowner’s policy affords coverage for gradually deteriorating basement walls that remain standing. The Allstate policies at issue were “all-risk” policies, meaning they covered “sudden and accidental direct physical losses” to residential properties. While “collapse” losses were generally excluded, the policies did provide coverage for a limited class of “sudden and accidental” collapses, including those caused by “hidden decay,” and/or “defective methods or materials used in construction, repair or renovations.” Covered collapses did not include instances of “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES