Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Absence of Property Damage During Policy Period Equates to No Coverage

April 01, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Montana Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the insured due to a lack of property damage during the policy period. Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia, 2015 Mont. LEXIS 54 (Mont. Feb. 17, 2015). The insured plumbing company, Lolo Plumbing & Heating, installed a water heater at Famous Dave's restaurant. At the time of installation, the insured had a CGL policy with Truck. The policy provided coverage from July 10, 2006 to November 29, 2009. On March 12, 2010, three years after the water heater was installed, a burning smaell was detected in the restaurant's mechanical room. The fire department turned off the water heater and asked that a plumber look at it. Diamond Plumbing & Heating was called and replaced the combustion air fan assembly, but did not further examine the water heater. 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

Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment

January 28, 2015 — Bloomberg News
The billionaire founder of closely held China Pacific Construction Group sued six local governments in a bid to force payment of 900 million yuan ($144 million) his company is owed for infrastructure projects. Yan Jiehe said today he was trying to prove a point and winning the lawsuits wasn’t his main goal. Courts in Hebei, Yunnan, Guizhou, Hunan and Shandong provinces accepted the cases, he said in an interview. “We cannot let the governments work without any supervision anymore,” Yan said. “The results of the lawsuits are not that important to me and I care more about rule of law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

August 04, 2016 — Scott Van Voorhis – Engineering News-Record
When crunching the numbers on the construction wrap-up program for the T-Mobile Arena project outside Las Vegas, insurance broker Aon Risk Services South allegedly failed to take into account a Nevada workers’ compensation rule, one of many intricate features of the state’s workers’ compensation regulations. Others had apparently missed this aspect of the rule, too. “Many business owners and executives are unaware of this regulation and … are paying more premium to their workers’ compensation carriers than they should be,” warned Bradley Rowe, a commercial insurance broker in Las Vegas, in a blog post in 2014. Two years later, the prime contractor joint venture on the completed $230-million arena is battling in court with Aon, charging the broker with professional negligence and breach of contract, according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
You may send questions or comments to enr.com@bnpmedia.com

$109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station

October 02, 2018 — Greg Aragon - Engineering News-Record
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), along with the Los Angeles office of Stantec, recently began work on the $109-million Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station Improvement Project in Los Angeles. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Greg Aragon, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

General Contractor Supporting a Subcontractor’s Change Order Only for Owner to Reject the Change

December 09, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The opinion in Westchester Fire Ins. Co, LLC v. Kesoki Painting, LLC, 260 So.3d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) leads to a worthy discussion because it involves a common scope of work occurrence on construction projects involving a general contractor and subcontractor. The contractor submits a subcontractor’s change order request to the owner and the owner rejects the change order. What happens next is a scope of work payment dispute between the general contractor and subcontractor. Yep, a common occurrence. In this case, a general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform waterproofing and painting. A scope of work issue arose because the specifications did not address how the window gaskets should be cut and then sealed. The owner wanted the window gaskets cut at a 45-degree angle and the subcontractor claimed this resulted in increased extra work. The general contractor agreed and submitted a change order to the owner to cover these costs. The owner rejected the change order claiming it was part of the general contractor’s scope of work even though the cutting of window gaskets at a 45-degree angle was not detailed in the specifications. After the subcontractor filed a suit against the general contractor’s payment bond surety, the project architect further rejected the change order because gasket cutting was part of the specification requirements. (Duh! What else was the architect going to say? It was not going to concede there was an omission that resulted in a change order to the owner, right?) 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

Suing A Payment Bond Surety in Different Venue Than Set Forth in The Subcontract

August 10, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The venue to file a lawsuit can be an important issue for a variety of reasons, whether for convenience or the prospect of a more favorable outcome. Oftentimes, there is a venue provision in a contract that provides where the exclusive venue for any dispute arising out of the contract must be brought. In a recent case, Southeastern Concrete Constructors, LLC v. Western Surety Company, 2021 WL 2557297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), dealing with a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) project, a subcontractor filed suit against the general contractor’s FDOT payment bond issued under Florida Statute s. 337.18. The subcontractor did not file suit against the general contractor. The subcontractor filed suit in Hillsborough County, Florida. However, the subcontract contained a venue provision requiring disputes under the subcontract to be brought in Levy County, Florida. Based on this venue provision in the subcontract, the trial court granted a motion to transfer the venue of the dispute to Levy County. This, however, was reversed on appeal. 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

Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage

February 11, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the eastern span of the Bay Bridge has dealt with alleged “defective welds” and “cracked steel rods,” and now there are reports of leakage. The Chronicle stated that rainwater “is dripping into the steel structure beneath the road deck on the suspension stretch of the span, which,” according to Caltrans “is supposed to be watertight.” Water corrosion on a bridge could cost $6.4 billion, the San Francisco Chronicle claimed. Caltrans said that they “are going to have teams of engineers and inspectors there this weekend to assess the problem.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

July 21, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
It is unfortunate, but in certain matters, a construction lien foreclosure action is not actually driven by the principal amount in dispute. Oh no. Rather, it is driven by attorney’s fees. That’s right. Attorney’s fees. This is true even though Florida applies the significant issues test to determine the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. However, oftentimes the prospect of attorney’s fees is enough for parties to fear that exposure. There is a 1985 Florida Supreme Court case that I like to cite if applicable, C.U. Associates, Inc. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So.2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 1985), that finds, “in order to be a prevailing party entitled to the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 [a construction lien claim], a litigant must have recovered an amount exceeding that which was earlier offered in settlement of the claim.” Accord Sullivan v. Galske, 917 So.2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (explaining that although contractor is receiving a judgment in his favor, he may not be the prevailing party if the homeowner offered to settle prior to the lawsuit for an amount equal to or greater than the award in the judgment). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES