SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Best Practices for Productive Rule 26(f) Conferences on Discovery Plans

May 13, 2024 — Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute Resolver
In the April 4, 2024 edition of Division 1’s Toolbox Talk Series, Julian Ackert and Steve Swart presented on how to prepare for and structure Rule 26(f) conferences to be more effective. While Swart and Ackert focused on the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) regarding the requisite conference of the parties prior to a scheduling conference or scheduling order, it is worth noting that many states have substantially similar requirements. Rule 26(f) requires the parties to (i) discuss the nature and basis of their claims or defense; (ii) make or arrange for mandatory disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1); (iii) discuss issues about preserving discoverable information (including Electronically Stored Information – “ESI”); and (iv) develop a proposed discovery plan. Swart and Ackert’s presentation focused on the preservation of ESI and the proposed discovery plan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

---

COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource

March 30, 2020 — Adam Chelminiak, Joshua Mooney & Ryan Udell - White and Williams LLP
In less than a few weeks’ time, COVID-19 has changed the way we live and work. Businesses, large and small, have had to grapple with unprecedented challenges, including orders to close or significantly curtail operations in order to stem the transmission of the coronavirus. Often, these orders have not been clear or businesses are unsure whether they fit in a category that is deemed essential, life sustaining or other similar category that permits them to continue to operate. Or, the business believes that it is necessary for it to continue to operate for reasons that may not have been apparent to the governmental authority issuing the order. White and Williams has been busy assisting our clients in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and other states in understanding these orders. Below are government orders, and related resources, that have been announced and/or are currently in effect. White and Williams will continue to monitor these orders and add additional orders and resources as they are announced. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Adam Chelminiak, Joshua Mooney and Ryan Udell Mr. Chelminiak may be contacted at chelminiaka@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Mooney may be contacted at mooneyj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Udell may be contacted at udellr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story for government orders, and related resources, that have been announced and/or are currently in effect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

July 30, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
The proper classification of workers by construction companies has been on the radar of the Department of Labor for both the US and Virginia governments for quite a while. While most of the misclassification is innocent and not done to create issues, there have been enough instances of purposeful misclassification of certain workers as independent contractors (thus avoiding workers comp and other payroll expenses) that innocent contractors have born the brunt of these issues through increased payroll costs over those that misclassify (in the form of necessarily higher bids, higher overhead, etc.). As an additional deterrent to improper classification of workers, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry has issued guidelines for what will occur in Virginia Department of Safety and Health (VOSH) cases. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

January 09, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ohio Supreme Court bucked the modern trend by finding that there was no coverage under CGL policy's the subcontractor's exception for faulty workmanship claimed against the insured. Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Servs. 2018 Ohio LEXIS 2375 (Ohio Oct. 9, 2018). The University contracted with Charles Construction Services, Inc. to build a new luxury hotel and conference center on campus. After work was completed, the University discovered extensive water damage from hidden leaks that it believed were caused by the defective work of Charles Construction and its subcontractors. Repairs were made at the cost of $6 million. 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

---

When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk

December 18, 2022 — Michael V. Pepe & Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
General conditions and general requirements are terms of art in the construction industry that describe the indirect costs necessary to complete a construction project. After physical loss or damage to a project, the following question often arises: Are “general conditions” and “general requirements” covered under a builder’s risk policy? General Conditions vs. General Requirements General conditions are usually described as the cost of managing a construction project. Examples include salaries for personnel like project managers, supervisors, engineers, field office staff, as well as the cost of field trailers, office equipment and supplies, and anything necessary to support the staff. General requirements are the non-management indirect costs of executing the project, including items such as pre-development costs, permits, security, dumpsters, fences, temporary lighting, worker amenities, and clean-up costs. Reprinted courtesy of Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at GHebbel@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

April 08, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Bock v. Hansen (No. A136567, filed 4/2/14), a California appeals court held that an adjuster employed by an insurer can be sued personally for falsely representing that a first party claimant's policy does not cover a loss. In Bock, a 41-foot long, 7,300 pound tree limb crashed onto the insureds' home, damaging the roof, chimney, living room walls, windows and floors. The assigned adjuster was alleged to have engaged in "appalling" conduct, including instructing the insureds to clean up the damage themselves (leading to personal injury); denying that the tree cracked the chimney; insulting and disparaging the insureds; altering the scene before taking photographs; misrepresenting the terms of the policy; preparing false claim reports; conspiring with a contractor to prepare an intentionally false report; and knowingly relying on the false report in order to deny a legitimate claim. The homeowners sued the insurer and named the adjuster personally on causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the adjuster demurred arguing that he could not be sued personally because, as an employee of the insurer, he owed no duty to the insureds. The adjuster relied on Sanchez v. Lindsey Morden Claims Services, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 249 and Lippert v. Bailey (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 376, to argue that employees and agents of insurers cannot be held personally liable since, under the law of agency, the proper cause of action is against the principal and not the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.



The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.



The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.



In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.



The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.



A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”



Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.



Read the court’s decision…

 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

February 28, 2022 — Paul R. Cressman Jr. - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent case decided by Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals, David Terry Investments, LLC – PRC v. Headwaters Development Group LLC,[1] the court held that parties to an arbitration agreement can be compelled to arbitrate related claims with non-parties to the agreement based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The case involved six joint venture agreements to develop three separate properties in Spokane, two joint venture agreements per property. One entity, David Terry Investments, LLC – PRC (“DTI”), owned by David Terry, was a partner in each of the six joint venture agreements. DTI joint ventured with S.G. Spady Consulting (“SGSC”) and with Headwaters Development Group LLC (“HDG”) separately for each of the three properties. HDG owned the three properties, and SGSC was to provide construction management advice. Steve Spady was the principal of both HDG and SGSC. Stoneridge was a licensed general contractor, the principal of which was also Steve Spady. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman Jr., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Cressman may be contacted at paul.cressman@acslawyers.com

---