SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

DC Circuit Approves, with Some Misgivings, FERC’s Approval of the Atlantic Sunrise Natural Gas Pipeline Extension

December 02, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the case of Allegheny Defense Project, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on August 2, 2019. In a Per Curiam opinion, the court denied petitions challenging the Commission’s orders permitting the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company’s expansion of an existing natural gas pipeline which extends from northern Pennsylvania across the Carolinas into Alabama. The expansion is called the “Atlantic Sunrise Project.” In February 2017, FERC approved the expansion, and denied various petitions, filed by environmental organizations and affected landowners, who then challenged the decision in the DC Circuit. However, the court concluded, on the basis of the administrative record, that these challenges “cannot surmount the deferential standards of agency review and binding DC Circuit precedent.” Under the law, the Commission must consider whether the projected pipeline project meets a market need, and whether the public benefits outweigh the harms. If both criteria are satisfied, FERC will, as in this instance, issue a certificate authorizing the pipeline’s construction, and that certificate also empowers the certificate holder to exercise eminent domain authority under to the Natural Gas Act when necessary. It was the latter consequence of the FERC’s determinations that caused several Pennsylvania landowners to file their objections with the Commission and seek to stay construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

UPDATE: Texas Federal Court Permanently Enjoins U.S. Department of Labor “Persuader Rule” Requiring Law Firms and Other Consultants to Disclose Work Performed for Employers on Union Organization Efforts

December 08, 2016 — Aaron C. Schlesinger & Gregory R. Begg – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
As an update to our prior alert, on November 16, 2016, a federal judge in Texas issued a permanent injunction blocking the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) “persuader rule” – a preliminary injunction had been granted this past June. In rendering the permanent injunction, the court adopted the reasoning of its prior June 27, 2016 decision that granted a nationwide preliminary injunction on the rule. In the earlier decision, the court held that a temporary injunction was appropriate because the parties challenging the rule were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim […]. Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Kiewit and Two Ex-Managers Face Canada Jobsite Fatality Criminal Trial

October 12, 2020 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
Canada appears set to try a rare criminal case against a major company—U.S. contractor Kiewit Corp.—for a workplace fatality stemming from a more than decade-old accident on a remote British Columbia hydroelectric project that killed a 24-year-old field employee. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

December 30, 2013 — W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
The case of Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 452374 (D. Colo. February 6, 2013) is instructive as an example of both the confusion and resulting escalation of litigation that can result from a lack of clarity in settlement negotiations. This is particularly true where parties settle outside of their insurance coverage, and/or without notifying their insurer(s), which have denied coverage. The case involved coverage litigation following settlement of a multi-party construction defect case involving the Rivergate multi-family residential development in Durango, Colorado. The condominium owners association sued, among others, the developer (Rivergate Lofts Partners, hereafter “RLP”) and the general contractor (Genex Construction, LLC, hereafter “Genex”). This follow-on case involved the insurers for RLP (“Hartford”) and Genex (“Bituminous”). The coverage dispute was complicated by the Bituminous allegations that Hartford insured Genex in its alleged role as a manager for RLP, as part of Hartford’s insurance of RLP more generally. The underlying facts were that Hartford denied insurance coverage and defense to Genex/Bituminous. The underlying construction defect case went to mediation, with the COA, RLP, and Genex all in attendance with their respective insurer representatives, and coverage counsel. While the evolving facts of that mediation were later disputed as to their motives, intentions, and the contemporaneous knowledge of the parties, the facts reflected in documents were fairly clear. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

---

There is No Presumptive Resumption!

January 21, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Louisiana school board filed suit in court in 2018 on a construction project but was rebuffed based upon arguments by the general contractor and surety defendants. Those defendants asserted that the court filings were premature, based upon an arbitration clause in the general contract. The trial court agreed and stayed the litigation, “pending completion of arbitration.” Arbitration was never filed. Interestingly, within the arbitration clause, the following language existed: “For statute of limitations purposes, receipt of written demand for arbitration shall constitute the institution of legal or equitable proceedings based upon the Claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

July 13, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown. An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:

In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.

U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).

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

---

Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

October 22, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion dulling the teeth of the “no voluntary payment” clauses found in many contractors’ insurance policies. In the case of Stresscon Corporation v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 2013 WL 4874352 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals found that an insured’s breach of the “no voluntary payment” clause does not always bar the insured from receiving benefits from its insurance company. In July 2007, at a construction project run by Mortenson (the “GC”), a partially erected building collapsed, killing one worker and gravely injuring another. The collapse was caused by a crane hook pulling a concrete component off of its supports. The GC contracted with Stresscon Corporation (“Stresscon”) to build pre-cast concrete components for the project, and in turn Stresscon hired two sub-subcontractors, RMS and Hardrock (the “Crane Team”) to work together to erect those concrete components. Stresscon and the Crane Team had liability insurance, and Stresscon was insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”). The accident led to three separate lawsuits: 1) one brought by the deceased worker; 2) one brought by the injured worker; and 3) one brought by the GC against Stresscon claiming it was entitled to contract damages incurred because the project was delayed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

---

Appellate Team Secures Victory in North Carolina Governmental Immunity Personal Injury Matter

January 23, 2023 — Sam Friedman & Christopher Meeks - Lewis Brisbois
Atlanta, Ga. (January 12, 2023) - Atlanta Appellate Partners Seth M. Friedman and Christopher Meeks obtained a significant appellate win on behalf of a city in North Carolina when the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the city’s motion for summary judgment. In the underlying case, Lewis Brisbois’ client was sued for injuries that occurred during the construction of a dog park. The city moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was immune from suit under the doctrine of governmental immunity. The trial court denied the motion and held that the city waived its governmental immunity through the purchase of a liability insurance policy. Lewis Brisbois was subsequently retained to handle the appeal. Before the North Carolina Court of Appeals, Lewis Brisbois argued, on behalf of its client, that well-established North Carolina law, along with a particular provision in the city’s insurance policy, rendered the city immune from the plaintiff’s claims. The appellate court agreed, holding that the city was immune from all liability and entitled to summary judgment on all of the plaintiff’s claims. The court's full opinion can be read here. Reprinted courtesy of Sam Friedman, Lewis Brisbois and Christopher Meeks, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Friedman may be contacted at Seth.Friedman@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Meeks may be contacted at Christopher.Meeks@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---