Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Disappearing Data: Avoid Losing Electronic Information to Avoid Losing the Case

February 01, 2022 — Daniel C. Wennogle & Jennifer Knight Lang - Construction Executive
It happens: A contractor on a delayed project ends up in litigation over liquidated damages, but the key communications regarding delays and approvals were sent and received by the project manager on a mobile device using text messages and personal email accounts. Unfortunately, the project manager left the company a year ago on bad terms and has changed phones. The information that would serve to mitigate the contractor’s liability has disappeared. With better awareness and policies for capturing and managing electronic information, this is avoidable. Proactive and effective management of electronically stored information on construction projects can not only reduce costs and discovery disputes should litigation arise but can also provide critical evidence in reducing liability exposure in such disputes. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as most state rules, which often mirror federal rules), provide for sanctions if a party fails to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) that should have been preserved in anticipation of litigation but is lost due to the failure to take reasonable steps to preserve it. Even in arbitration, where discovery and disclosure obligations are often more limited than in the court setting, preservation of ESI can help strengthen claims and defenses, avoiding accusations of spoliation that can derail a case. Arbitrators can also fashion appropriate sanctions for destruction of relevant evidence, not to mention the impact that apparent spoliation can have on a party’s credibility. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel C. Wennogle & Jennifer Knight Lang, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Ms. Lang may be contacted at jennifer.lang@moyewhite.com Mr. Wennogle may be contacted at daniel.wennogle@moyewhite.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Need another sign of the housing recovery? Lowe’s stock price is up. Bloomberg News reports that the home-improvement retailer rose by 88 cents a share in the last quarter. Analysts had predicted gains of 79 cents a share, and the same quarter last year saw profits of 64 cents a share. The increase in profits come from more purchases and higher spending per purchase. While Lowe’s negotiated some better prices with vendors and dropped some items that weren’t selling, none of the profits came from staff reduction; the retailer actually increased staffing. Home Depot, the largest such chain (Lowe’s is number 2), also saw profits that exceeded analysts’ projections. They, too, have decided to focus on assisting customers. Their increase in profits was attributed to greater spending by contractors and homeowners. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illusory Insurance Coverage: Real or Unreal?

August 24, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In insurance coverage declaratory relief actions, there are times an insured will argue that the insurance policy coverage is illusory. Typically, an insured will raise this illusory argument if its insurer is denying coverage based on an exclusion or limitation in the policy. If a court agrees and deems the coverage illusory, the court will construe the policy to afford coverage to the insured. This is the obvious value of the argument: coverage! “A policy is illusory only if there is an internal contradiction that completely negates the coverage it expresses to provide.” The Warwick Corp. v. Turetsky, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1797a (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Thus, if a policy grants coverage in one section but then excludes the same coverage in another section, the coverage would be deemed illusory. Id. quoting Tire Kingdom, Inc. v. First S. Ins. Co., 573 So.2d 885, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). An illusory policy was found in the following examples: (a) a policy covered certain intentional torts but then excluded intended acts; (b) a policy covered advertising injury but elsewhere excluded advertising injury; and (c) a policy covered parasailing but excluded watercrafts. Id. (citations omitted). In all examples, coverage in the policy was completely swallowed up by an exclusion rendering the coverage illusory. Stated differently, coverage was completely contradicted by an exclusion in the policy rendering the policy absurd. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Not All Design-Build Projects are Created Equal

June 28, 2021 — Nicole Markowitz & Richard Robinson - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
As the need for faster and more efficient construction increases, design-build agreements are growing in popularity. Design-build projects may account for 44% of nonresidential building in the United States this year. However, contractors who venture into a “design builder” role may unexpectedly become liable for design errors/omissions that are not covered by their insurance policies. In turn, they may expose themselves to liability and insurance risks that are neither insured nor managed. In this article, we’ll discuss how the contractor who becomes a design-builder, or performs design-related work through subcontractors, faces potentially unmanaged risk. We will also explore indemnity, warranty, and insurance traps by paying attention to contract language in both traditional design-build and design-assist scenarios. Reprinted courtesy of Nicole Markowitz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Richard Robinson, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Markowitz may be contacted at nmarkowitz@pecklaw.com Mr. Robinson may be contacted at rrobinson@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

July 30, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In responding to a certified question from the U.S. Distric Court, the Hawaii Supreme Court determined that an excess carrier can sue the primary carrier for failure to settle a claim in bad faith within primary limits. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Libery Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Haw. LEXIS 142 (Haw. June 29, 2015). St. Paul, the excess carrier, and Liberty Mutual, the primary carrier, issued polices to Pleasant Travel Service, Inc. The primary policy covered up to $1 million. Pleasant Travel was sued for damages resulting from an accidental death. St. Paul alleged that Liberty Mutual rejected multiple pretrial settlement offers within the $1 million primary policy limit. A trial resulted in a verdict of $4.1 million against Pleasant Travel. The action settled for a confidential amount in excess of the Liberty Mutual policy limit. St. Paul paid the amount in excess. 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

Homeowner Alleges Pool Construction Is Defective

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Texas man is suing the contractor who built his pool alleging that within months of construction, the pool began to crack and leak water. According to the lawsuit from Larry Merendino, when the concrete contractor, PC Construction, removed some concrete, they found PVC joints that were not glued properly and were leaking. Mr. Merendino is suing the company and five other firms, claiming that the construction of his pool was negligent and that the companies operated by deceptive trade practices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

February 15, 2018 — Frances Ma & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Publications & Insights
Gonzalez v. Mathis, 2018 WL 718528 confirms the difficulties a defendant will face when trying to overcome the Kinsman exception to the Privette doctrine on a dispositive motion when dealing with an open and obvious hazard. There, a professional window washer fell off a roof while walking along a parapet wall constructed by the owner of a home. The window washer filed suit against the homeowner and alleged three dangerous conditions on the roof: (1) the parapet wall forced those who needed to access a skylight to walk along an exposed two-foot ledge that lacked a safety railing; (2) dilapidated and slippery roof shingles; and (3) the lack of tie off points that would allow maintenance workers to secure themselves with ropes or harnesses. The homeowner filed a motion for summary judgment under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and its progeny which prohibits an independent contractor from suing his or her hirer for workplace injuries (“Privette doctrine”). There are two exceptions to the Privette doctrine. First, a hirer cannot avoid liability when he or she exercises control over the manner and means in which a contractor does his or her work and that control contributes to the injuries sustained – known as the “Hooker exception” (premised on the holding of Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198). Second, a hirer may be found liable if he or she fails to warn the contractor of a concealed hazard on the premises – known as the “Kinsman exception” (premised on the holding of Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005)). Reprinted courtesy of Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

March 12, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New York Court of Appeals determined that a two year period for obtaining replacement costs for damage to property was unenforceable where the property could not be reasonably replaced in two years. Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2014 WL 551251 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2014). Plaintiff's office building was severely damaged in a fire on February 23, 2007. It cost more than a million dollars to restore the building to its previous condition. Plaintiff had $1 million in coverage from Peerless. The policy provided that replacement costs for any loss would be paid after the damaged property was repaired. The insured was required to make the repairs as soon as possible. Further, the policy provided that any legal action against the insurer had to be brought within two years of the loss. Peerless paid the "actual cash value" of the destroyed building pursuant to the policy in the amount of $757,812.50. Peerless informed the plaintiff that it would have to provide documentation of the completion of repairs to collect the full replacement value, another $242,187.50. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES