SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

After suing a contractor for failing to complete the remodeling of their home, an Orange County couple has settled for an apology. Douglas J. Pettibone represented the contractor, who had lost his business after a broken neck, multiple surgeries, and an addiction to pain medicine. Mr. Pettibone represented his client pro bone. The case was settled in arbitration by JAMS.



Mr. Pettibone noted that his client gave “a heartfelt and very moving apology.” The remodeling was completed by another contractor, two years after Thorp Construction stopped work on the project. After the apology, the case was dismissed.

Read the full story…

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

---

US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long

November 15, 2021 — Debra K. Rubin & Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans on Nov. 6 stayed the Biden administration's requirement that workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly, citing potential "grave statutory and constitutional" issues raised by opponents of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration's emergency temporary standard announced on Nov. 4. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record and Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Latin America’s Biggest Corporate Crime Gets a Worthy Epic

January 04, 2021 — Mac Margolis - Bloomberg
As much as pouring cement and building towers, Brazilian construction dynasty Odebrecht was famed for its political panache. “I get down in the mud with the pigs but come out the other side clean in my white suit,” Norberto Odebrecht, founder of the legacy contractor, liked to boast back in the 1970s and 1980s. The catchphrase was shorthand for what became a patently Brazilian way of doing business – the art of buying influence and coming away unsoiled, or at least unincarcerated – among porcine politicians and bribe-truffling officials. In half a century and over three generations, the family firm from northeast Brazil grew into a multinational engineering colossus, hurling up grand public works from the Andes to Angola. Shady pacts with political grifters and bagmen were just part of the deal behind the build-up and seemingly nothing a little Brazilian bonhomie and contract skimming couldn’t tidy up. Until it didn’t. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mac Margolis, Bloomberg
Mr. Margolis may be contacted at mmargolis14@bloomberg.net

---

Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails

February 03, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's efforts to exclude two of the insured's experts in a collapse case were unsuccessful. Hudon Specialty Ins. Co. v. Talex Enterprises, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150148 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 4, 2019). The insureds' building collapsed. The remaining portions of the building required immediate stabilization. The insureds hired Mr. Laird, an engineer, to prevent further property destruction. The insured designated Mr. Laird as a non-retained expert for trial. Mr. Laird's report claimed that the collapse was caused because the building had been re-roofed many times without removal of the degraded underlying roofing materials, thereby adding additional weight to the roof structure. The insureds also designated Steve Cox as a non-retained expert. Mr. Cox was an architect who owned property neighboring the building that collapsed. He opined that the building collapsed because of the condition of very old mortar and not because of water standing on the building roof or because of roof repairs. Hudson sought to strike these two experts because their opinions were inconsistent with the admitted facts. A document produced by the insureds stated that a large amount of rainwater had collected on the roof and the weight of the rainfall was the proximate cause of the collapse. Hudson claimed that this statement qualified as a judicial admission, removing the question of causation from contention. The court disagreed that the statement was a judicial admission because it did not form any part of the pleadings. The statement may have been an evidentiary admission that could be controverted or explained by the parties. 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

---

Understanding the Miller Act

February 26, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
John P. Ahlers of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, explained who is covered by the Miller Act in regards to Federal public works projects on the firm’s blog. Ahlers stated that “[t]he Miller Act requires that all general contractors post payment bonds on contracts in excess of $25,000.00.” In his blog post, Ahlers goes over coverage and the distinction between subcontractor and supplier. Ahlers commented, “While, at first glance, it may seem fairly simple to sort out who is and who is not covered by the Miller Act payment bond, the analysis can at times be factually and legally complex. This is an area that, if faced, the contractor should seek legal advice of an experienced construction lawyer before jumping to conclusions.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Trump Administration Issues Proposed 'Waters of the U.S.' Rule

December 19, 2018 — Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
Construction contractors said a proposed revised definition of “Waters of the United States,” released by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers on Dec. 11, would provide their firms with clarity about what types of permits they will need for their construction projects near various bodies of water. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

---

Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

November 18, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The contractor was covered as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy even though the parties had never actually signed an agreement to add the contractor to the policy. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20081 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011).

The policies held by Bellevue Master, the general contractor, required it to be an additional insured under any subcontractor’s liability policy. Northwest Tower Crane Services was a subcontractor. Bellevue Master LLC, faxed a message that Northwest could continue to be a subcontractor on the project if it complied with Bellevue Master’s insurance requirements. Northwest contacted its insurance broker and requested an insurance certificate be issued to Bellevue Master so that it would be an additional insured under Northwest’s policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Mid-Session Overview of Colorado’s 2017 Construction Defect Legislation

March 16, 2017 — David McClain - Colorado Construction Litigation
As the 2017 Colorado legislative session reaches the halfway point, I thought it an opportune time to provide a quick overview of the construction defect bills introduced so far this session. Senate Bill 17-045, “Concerning a Requirement for Equitable Allocation of the Costs of Defending a Construction Defect Claim,” sponsored by Senators Grantham and Angela Williams and Representatives Duran and Wist, was introduced on January 11th and assigned to the Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee. This bill affects construction defect actions in which more than one insurer has a duty to defend a party by providing that if the carriers cannot agree regarding how to allocate defense costs within 45 days of the filing of a contribution action, a court must conduct a hearing regarding the apportionment of the costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, among all carriers sharing in the duty to defend within 60 days after an insurer files its claim for contribution, unless the carriers agree to resolve the issue through a mutually agreeable, alternative process. The bill further provides that the court must make a final apportionment of costs after entry of a final judgment resolving all of the underlying claims against the insured. The bill also makes clear that an insurer seeking contribution may also make a claim against an insured or additional insured who chose not to procure liability insurance during any period of time relevant to the underlying action. Finally, the bill states that a claim for contribution may be assigned and that bringing such a claim does not affect any insurer’s duty to defend. The Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee heard SB 17-045 on February 8th and referred the bill, as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---