Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Washington State May Allow Common Negligence Claims against Construction Professionals

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lane Powell, a law firm with offices in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and London has issued a construction law update on a recent decision of the Washington Supreme Court. The case involved a development firm that sued its engineering firm. The developer had gained preliminary approval to develop two short plats, and after the approvals expired, sought the assistance of the engineering firm in regaining approval. Eventually, the developer lost the plats to foreclosure and sued the engineering firm. The Washington Supreme Court rejected most of the developer’s claims in the case, but sent the negligence claims back to the trial court. The Lane Powell construction law update notes that “the record didn’t adequately establish the scope of the professional obligations incorporated into the contract, the court refused to determine if any of the engineer’s duties to the plaintiffs arose independently of the contract.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

March 19, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- Housing starts plummeted in February by the most since 2011 as plunging temperatures and snow became the latest hurdles for an industry struggling to recover. Work began on 897,000 houses at an annualized rate, down 17 percent from January and the fewest in a year, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday in Washington. The pace was slower than the most pessimistic projection in a Bloomberg survey of 81 economists. “Today’s report leaves me a little concerned,” said Michelle Meyer, deputy head of U.S. economics at Bank of America Corp. in New York. “While the initial reaction is to dismiss much of the drop because of the bad weather, the level of home construction continues to be depressed.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News
Michelle Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net

Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

July 26, 2017 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Undocumented underground debris fields at a Gulf of Mexico port project are at the heart of a contractor’s nearly $50-million federal lawsuit against the Mississippi Development Authority and eight engineering and construction consultants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

September 15, 2016 — Kevin J. Parker – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
This post follows, almost two years to the day, Rick Erickson’s post of August 29, 2014. As noted by Rick Erickson in his August 29, 2014 post, the Arizona Supreme Court in the Weitz case (2014) had determined that equitable subrogation principles were applicable to enable an earlier-recorded mechanic’s lien to be trumped by a later-recorded bank deed of trust, if the loan secured by the later deed of trust paid off a lien that had been ahead of the mechanic’s lien. In a decision filed August 9, 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals further clarified the scope of such equitable subrogation. In Markham Contracting Co., Inc. v. FDIC, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0752 (August 9, 2016), the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed a situation where a first-recorded deed of trust was followed by a second-recorded mechanic’s lien; and then, after the mechanic’s lien was recorded, a new lender made a secured construction loan that was used, in part, to pay off the loan that was secured by the first-position deed of trust. The key being “in part.” The subsequent lender loaned $4.8 million, but only $2.9 million went to pay off the balance owing on the first-position deed of trust. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker – Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court. The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.” The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties. Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment. The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.” The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors. The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.” The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

April 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Kansas Court of Appeals determined that the insurer must defend claims of negligent misrepresentation against its insured. Central Power Sys. & Servs. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 2014 Kan. App. LEXIS 9 (Kan. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2014). Central Power contracted to furnish Eagle Well with 10 oil-rig engines and 10 oil-rig transmissions. Eagle Well alleged that Central Power informed them that the engines and transmissions would be operational without any additional components. As is turned out, the engines could not operate without a wiring harness. Eagle Well had to hire a third party to make wiring harnesses that would meet their needs and to install the wiring harnesses. Eagle Wells sued Central Power, alleging damages in the form of lost profits for the time it took to make the engines independently operational. Further, damages were incurred due to money needed for the costs of purchasing the wiring harnesses from the third party and attaching the harnesses to the engines. Claims asserted against Central Power included breach of contract, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. 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

Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

August 27, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the insurer's argument that coverage was barred for the insured's contractual assumption of liability of another. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am v. Peaker Serv., Inc., 2014 WL 3605680 (Mich. Ct. App. July 22, 2014). The contractor was hired to install an "electronic over-speed system" at the University of Michigan. The hope was that the new system would prevent the steam turbines at the central power plant from turning too quickly. The parties' contract provided, “Section 15.18. Supplier Damage to University Property. Without regard to any other section of the Agreement, Supplier shall be responsible for the costs to return to ‘as was’ condition from any damage caused to the building, grounds, or other equipment and furnishings caused in whole or part by Supplier Personnel while performing activities arising under this Agreement.” The contractor improperly calibrated the system, causing one of the university's turbines to operate at twice the safe operational speed, causing significant damage to the generator equipment. The university sued the contractor for more than $3 million in damages. Travelers defended, but filed a declaratory judgment action, contending that coverage did not exist because the "contractual liability" exclusion applied. Section 15.18 of the contract purportedly constituted an "assumption" of the insured's own liability, and was therefore not covered under the CGL policy. 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

Takeaways From Schedule-Based Dispute Between General Contractor and Subcontractor

September 09, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida, Berkley Insurance Co. v. Suffolk Construction Co., Case 1:19-cv-23059-KMW (S.D.Fla. July 22, 2024), provides valuable takeaways on schedule-based disputes between a general contractor and subcontractor on a high-rise project. In a nutshell, the general contractor’s original project schedule was abandoned due to project delays and the project wasn’t being built by any updated project schedule. The subcontractor claimed the general contractor was mismanaging the schedule putting unreasonable manpower and supervision constraints on it, i.e., it was working inefficiently. A bench trial was conducted and the Court found in favor of the subcontractor’s arguments. The Court found the general contractor had unrelated delays and that work activities were no longer methodical but, simply, piecemeal demands. The Court also rejected any inadequate manpower arguments finding the subcontract did not place any manpower requirements on the subcontractor. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES