Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

September 03, 2019 — Louise Poirier - Engineering News-Record
Problematic utility locations and difficult ground conditions required the project team to develop innovative solutions on the University of Texas at San Antonio’s $95-million Science and Engineering Building. Reprinted courtesy of Louise Poirier, Engineering News-Record Ms. Poirier may be contacted at poirierl@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

More than a dozen construction workers fell about thirty feet when a floor collapsed in a Cincinnati casino. The workers were pouring cement on the second-floor level when the accident happened. The area in question will be the gaming area in the completed casino. Scott Allen, OSHA’s regional spokesperson, said their investigation of the accident would probably take about a month to complete.

The cause of the collapse is still undetermined. Although the weather has been wet in the area, experts thought it unlikely to be the cause. A construction forensics professor at Ohio State University said that “concrete pouring is very common” and that “you cannot go wrong unless something happens with the connection.” Engineering experts said it was more likely an issue with the metal decking.

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

You Can Take This Job and Shove It!

June 10, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
That’s it. You’ve had it. They can take their job and shove it! But can you really tell an owner on a construction project to proverbially shove it where the sun don’t shine? Well, far be it for me to tread on your First Amendment Rights or stick my nose into the subsequently brought public disturbance charges against you. But can you legally tell an owner to shove it, and that you’re no longer going to perform work on their [insert expletive] project? Well, indeed you can, in limited circumstances, and it’s called a “Stop Work Notice.” Note: A stop work notice is different from a stop payment notice. What is a stop work notice? A stop work notice is a notice given by a direct contractor to a project owner that the contractor will stop work if an amount owed to the contract is not paid within 10 days after notice is given. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

June 27, 2022 — Gerard J. Onorata - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
During a construction project, it is not uncommon for disputes to arise between a general contractor and a subcontractor. Frequently, these disputes involve claims for extra work and delay damages that can be attributed to the owner of the project due to deficient design or unforeseen conditions. When these occasions arise, the parties can often resolve these claims without the need for litigation or arbitration by entering into a “liquidating agreement.” What is a Liquidating Agreement? Because there is no direct contractual relationship between a subcontractor and an owner, there does not exist a legal basis for a subcontractor to assert a breach of contract claim against a project owner. In legal parlance, this is known as “lack of contractual privity.” A liquidating agreement bridges this contractual gap and allows a subcontractor to pass its claim against the owner through the general contractor. Essentially, with a liquidating agreement, the general contractor acts as a conduit for passing through the subcontractor’s claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Firms working on the Quincy Center redevelopment project in the Boston area are claiming that the developer has been slow to pay. Street-Works Development says that Twining Properties, a partner in the development, is in the process of paying off $1.9 million owed to construction companies. The project was put on hold when it was determined that funds were not available to build the initially planned 15-story, steel-framed apartment building as part of a residential, retail, and office complex. The residential portion will now be a 6-story, wood-framed building. One of the contractors has taken the first steps to placing a lien on another property owned by Street-Works. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Old Case Teaches New Tricks

March 16, 2017 — Angela A.L. Connor & Curtis W. Martin - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Eight years after completion of the wharf project, Zachry and the Port of Houston continue to slug it out in the appellate courts and continue to refi ne Texas construction law along the way. In the latest appellate opinion, the Court of Appeals details the general contractor’s control of the means and methods of their work without interference from a governmental entity. It also supports a subcontractor’s use of a pass-through claim as a cost efficient way to recover damages. By now most of us are familiar with the project and the previous decisions. Zachry sued the Port claiming breach after the Port denied Zachry the right to continue construction using its frozen cutoff wall. The Texas Supreme Court upheld the jury’s $20 million verdict for Zachry, ruling that the Port’s “no damages for delay” clause would not bar Zachry’s claim in light of the Port’s active interference with Zachry’s work. The Supreme Court then sent the case back to the Court of Appeals to consider other arguments that the Port had made. That led to the most recent decision. In December, 2016, the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Zachry on all issues and affirmed the jury verdict. In doing so, the Court of Appeals provides several lessons or reminders on Texas Construction law. Reprinted courtesy of Angela A.L. Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Connor may be contacted at aconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

August 26, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Addressing issues left open in its seminal decision in Montrose, the California Supreme Court found that the language in the first-level excess policies meant that the insured could access the policies upon exhaustion of the directly underlying policies purchased for the same policy period. Truck Ins. Exchange v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 2024 Cal. LEXIS 3271 (Cal. June 17, 2024). From 1944 through the 1970's, Kaiser manufactured asbestos-containing products at numerous different facilities. By 2004, more than 24,000 claimants had filed product liability claims against Kaiser alleging that they had suffered bodily injury as a result of exposure to Kaiser's asbestos products. Kaiser tendered these claims to Truck, one of several primary insurers that had issued CGL policies to Kaiser. In 2001, Truck initiated this coverage action to determine its indemnity and defense obligations to Kaiser. Truck later amended its complaint to add a cause of action for contribution against several of Kaiser's excess insurers. The issue presently before the court was whether Truck was entitled to contribution from various coinsurers that issued first-level excess policies to Kaiser during the period in question. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

December 10, 2015 — Laura C. Williams, R. Bryan Martin & Lawrence S. Zuckerman – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel, Inc. (filed 10/23/15; certified for publication 11/20/15), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant haunted attraction operator holding that the risk of a patron being frightened, then running away and falling is inherent in the fundamental nature of a haunted house attraction. The Court further determined there was no evidence the operator acted recklessly or unreasonably increased such risks beyond those inherent in the attraction. In October 2011, Plaintiff attended The Haunted Trail attraction, which featured actors in costumes jumping out holding prop weapons to scare patrons walking along a trail through Balboa Park. The Haunted Trail also employed a scare tactic known as the “Carrie” effect, in which the patrons walk through a fake exit and suddenly a chainsaw wielding actor appears and charges at the patrons for one final jolting scare. It was during this final scene of The Haunted Trail’s “Carrie” effect that Griffin became frightened by an actor brandishing a chainsaw causing him to suddenly run away in fear. As he was fleeing, Griffin fell and injured his wrist. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Laura C. Williams, R. Bryan Martin and Lawrence S. Zuckerman Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES