SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

June 10, 2015 — Matthew Townsend – Bloomberg
The home testing method Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. is using to reassure customers that their floors are safe is being questioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In response to allegations that its Chinese-made laminate flooring emitted excessive levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, Lumber Liquidators sent thousands of do-it-yourself tests to people who’d purchased the products. Customers use a device in the kit to measure the air in their homes for 24 hours, then send the package back to have the results evaluated. While the EPA didn’t take a position on the specifics of Lumber Liquidators’ test program, the agency said on its website that home air testing “may not provide useful information due to the uncertainties” of the method. Air tests don’t pinpoint the specific source of a contaminant, and there are no widely accepted standards for indoor formaldehyde levels, the agency said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Townsend, Bloomberg

---

Colorado Legislature Considering Making it Easier to Prevail on CCPA Claims

April 03, 2023 — Rachael Bandeira - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
House Bill 23-1192 (“HB 23-1192”) is one of the proposed bills making its way through the Colorado legislative session this year. It purports to create additional protections in the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), but instead threatens to put construction professionals at an increased risk during litigation. Under the scope of the proposed bill, many construction contracts, as drafted, could automatically add up to $250,000 to any claim by lowering the standard for what constitutes an “unfair or deceptive trade practice.” Further, it would remove elements of a CCPA claim currently required by law to prove that an unfair or deceptive trade practice “constitutes a significant impact to the public.” This bill still has a way to go before becoming law, but given its progress thus far, we believe it is highly probable that it will be enacted unless there is substantial pushback. For the reasons discussed below, we urge all construction professionals to take necessary action to obstruct this bill, and particularly Section 1 of the bill, from becoming enacted. The most concerning proposed amendments to the CCPA, through Section 1 of the bill, do the following:

• Remove the knowingly or recklessly mental state from the general unfair or deceptive trade practice provision concerning an unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, knowingly false, or fraudulent act or practice;

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rachael Bandeira, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Bandeira may be contacted at bandeira@hhmrlaw.com

---

The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real

May 16, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In prior postings, I have discussed the all-powerful General Agreement of Indemnity (click here and here). This is the document a bond-principal executes to obtain bonds (e.g., performance and payment bonds). Not only does the bond-principal execute this General Agreement of Indemnity, but typically, so do other indemnitors such as the company’s principals and their spouses, other related companies, etc. The objective is that the surety has financial comfort that if a claim is made against the bond, there are avenues where it will get reimbursed and indemnified for any cost it incurs, or payment it makes, relative to that claim against the bond. When a surety issues bonds, the objective is that all losses it incurs gets reimbursed because the bonds are NOT insurance policies. One of the powerful tools the surety can exercise in the General Agreement of Indemnity is to demand the bond-principal and other indemnitors to post collateral in an amount the surety deems sufficient to cover any losses it may incur. This is a right in any General Agreement of Indemnity I have seen and is a right the surety can rightfully exercise. A recent example is shown from the opinion in Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Quinco Electrical, Inc., 2022 WL 1230110 (M.D.Fla. 2022), which pertains to the surety’s motion for preliminary injunction. 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

---

Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

March 16, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Project Surveillance, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, No. 4:19-CV-03324, 2020 WL 292247 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2020), a Texas federal court held that a professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy precluded Travelers’ duty to defend its insured. The underlying lawsuit was a wrongful death action brought by the family of a worker killed on a construction site. Project Surveillance was present at the construction site “to provide safety supervision or other services.” The underlying lawsuit alleged that Project Surveillance negligently failed to inspect or adequately inspect the project and failed to warn or adequately warn the decedent of a dangerous condition. The underlying lawsuit also alleged that Project Surveillance was negligent in failing to stop work. At the time of the incident, Project Surveillance had commercial general liability insurance through Travelers and professional liability insurance through RLI. RLI agreed to defend Project Surveillance in the underlying lawsuit. Travelers, however, denied owing a duty to defend or indemnify based on an exclusion for “bodily injury” arising out of the rendering or failure to render any “professional service.” The Traveler policy defined the term “professional services” to mean any service requiring specialized skill or training, including “failure to prepare [. . .] any warning,” “supervision,” “inspection,” “control,” “surveying activity or service,” “job site safety,” “construction administration,” and “monitoring [. . .] necessary to perform and of [those] services.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

---

Challenging a Termination for Default

September 23, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
No contractor wants to be terminated for default. It is the harshest contractual recourse. It is a recourse that has implications, particularly in the public sector. However, a party needs to be in a position to support the basis of the termination for default, and the terminated party, in most instances, should not be in a position to imply accept the basis of the default. This applies regardless of the project. In the federal context: “When a contractor challenges a default termination, the government bears the burden of establishing the validity of the termination.” Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, Inc. v. U.S., 2024 WL 4048175, *7 (Fed.Cl. 2024) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Once the government establishes the default, “the contractor bears the burden of establishing that the default was excused by fault of the government.” Id. at *8 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Relevant considerations as to whether the contractor is in default include the contractor’s failure to meet contract specifications or the required schedule. Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, supra, at *8. “[T]here is ‘a requirement that the contractor give reasonable assurances of performance in response to a validly issued cure notice.” Id. (internal quotation and 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 Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

May 30, 2018 — Daniel Garcia - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
In Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, No. SC16-1420, 2017 WL 6379535 (Fla. Dec. 14, 2017), the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the notice and repair process set forth in chapter 558, Florida Statutes, constitutes a “suit” within the meaning of a commercial liability policy issued by Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“C&F”) to Altman Contractors, Inc. (“Altman”). The Court found that because the chapter 558 pre-suit process is an “alternative dispute resolution proceeding” as included in the definition of “suit” in the policy by C&F to Altman, C&F had a duty to defend Altman during the chapter 558 process, prior to the filing of a formal lawsuit. Chapter 558, titled “Construction Defects,” sets forth procedural requirements before a claimant may file a construction defect action. It requires a claimant to serve a written notice of claim on the applicable contractor, subcontractor, supplier, and/or design professional prior to filing a construction defect lawsuit. The legislature intended for Chapter 558 to be an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in certain construction defect matters allowing an opportunity to resolve the claim without further legal process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Garcia, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Garcia may be contacted at daniel.garcia@grsm.com

---

Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures

August 20, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On July 23, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided the case of Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition v. EPA. Environmental conservation groups and industry associations petitioned for review of a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), establishing requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities. Denying the petitions for review, the Court of Appeals summarized:

“Because we conclude, among other things, that both the Rule and the biological opinion are based on reasonable interpretations of the applicable statutes and sufficiently supported by the factual record, and because the EPA 3 gave adequate notice of its rulemaking, we DENY the petitions for review.”

This is a significant CWA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) decision involving the operation of major industrial facilities requiring the daily use of large amounts of water taken from adjacent bodies of water. 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

---

Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

June 30, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Paslay v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (No. B265348, filed 6/27/16), a California appeals court found triable issues of fact regarding whether State Farm breached its contract in paying a water loss, but affirmed summary adjudication for the insurer on bad faith and elder abuse claims based on the genuine dispute doctrine. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---