Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Where Do We Go From Here?

March 21, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Green Builder CoalitionFor this week’s Guest Post Friday, I welcome an old friend and past Guest Post Friday contributor, Mike Collignon. Mike is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Green Builder® Coalition. He engages in national and state-level advocacy and publishes regular content for Green Builder® Media. Mike is also the Chair of the WERS Development Group and has served as the moderator or host for Green Builder® Media’s Impact Series webinars from 2012– present. This post originally appeared on Green Builder® Media’s Code Watcher. Do you ever have a line from a song just pop into your head? I get that… a lot. It’s probably due to my lifelong love of music. Anyway, while I was researching this column, the line that cites the title of “Where Do We Go From Here?” by Filter started playing between my ears. You’ll see why in a couple of minutes. In case you didn’t read about it here or elsewhere, the IECC development process has undergone an overhaul. It is now following a standards process, yet it retains the word “code” in the name. The residential committee (which is the scope of this column) is now a consensus committee and has been greatly expanded. Proposals are still submitted, reviewed and voted on by the committee. On the surface, it doesn’t sound like much has changed. As they say, the devil is always in the details. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

December 01, 2017 — Alex Baghdassarian, Eric M. Gruzen, & Kerri Sakaue – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Contractors will soon find themselves on the frontline of wage disputes on projects if laborers working on behalf of their subcontractors or vendors are unpaid. On October 14, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1701, which will allow laborers to seek direct compensation from the general contractors on private projects, if their wages remain unpaid. The legislative mandate requires direct contractors—defined as contractors who have a direct contractual relationship with an owner—to assume liability for any debt incurred by a subcontractor, at any tier, for a wage claimant’s performance of labor included in the subject of the original contract between the general contractor and the owner. The California bill will apply to all private construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018. Previously, all laborers could maintain a mechanic’s lien claim against private property, without needing to serve a 20-day preliminary notice, but there was no statutory obligation on the “direct contractors” to reimburse the laborers their unpaid wages. Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys Alex Baghdassarian, Eric M. Gruzen and Kerri Sakaue Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Gruzen may be contacted at egruzen@pecklaw.com Ms. Sakaue may be contacted at ksakaue@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

January 28, 2014 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams attorneys scored a significant victory for the insurance industry on January 15, 2014, when a federal jury of four men and four women rejected a policyholder’s novel efforts to invalidate asbestos exclusions contained in insurance policies issued between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985. In General Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 04-CV-3509 (E.D. Pa.), General Refractories Company contended that asbestos exclusions in insurance policies issued by various insurance companies in the late 1970s and 1980s had not been submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance for approval prior to use and, therefore, were unenforceable. Holding a failure to obtain approval, by itself, would not be sufficient to render the exclusions unenforceable, the Honorable Edmund Ludwig sent the matter to trial to determine whether the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner implemented a policy that was uniformly executed by the Insurance Department to disapprove all asbestos exclusions between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985, such that the exclusions violated a “dominant public policy.”

Reprinted courtesy of Gregory LoCasale, White and Williams LLP

and Patricia Santelle , White and Williams LLP

Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com and Mr. LoCasale may be contacted at locasaleg@whiteandwilliams.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Michigan Court Waives Goodbye to Subrogation Claims, Except as to Gross Negligence

March 13, 2023 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In Ace American Insurance Company, et. al. v. Toledo Engineering Co., Inc., et. al., No. 18-11503, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15222 (Ace American), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determined whether insurers could pursue their subrogation claims against the defendants despite a waiver of subrogation in each of the contracts the insured had with the respective defendants. Based on the language of the contracts and the circumstances leading up to the loss, the court held that the insurers could not pursue their subrogation claims – other than their claims for gross negligence – due to waivers of subrogation in the applicable contracts. In Ace American, the insured, Guardian Industries, LLC (Guardian), retained Toledo Engineer Co., Inc. (TECO) and Dreicor, Inc. (Dreicor) to renovate a glass furnace in the insured’s glass manufacturing plant. Guardian and TECO entered into a contract on December 6, 2016. Guardian and Dreicor entered into a contract on September 29, 2013, that the parties later updated on June 3, 2016. Both defendants began work on the project in the spring of 2017 and were finished with the portion of the work known as the “Cold Tank Repair” prior to the loss. On June 3, 2017, there was an explosion and fire at the plant that caused significant property damage. The plaintiff insurers (Plaintiffs) made payments in the amount of $80 million and became subrogated to its insured’s rights. Plaintiffs then initiated this action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

November 13, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted, in part, the insurer's motion to exclude portions of expert testimony. Tundra M. Holdings, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139952 (D. Alaska Aug. 10, 2023). Plaintiff alleged a building it owned suffered damages consisting of building roof failure due to snow load. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Markel for its loss. Plaintiff hired an engineering firm to conduct an inspection. The recommendation was to install snow guards and that 28 rafters be replaced with new beams. The evaluation did not state that the recommendation was required by law or ordinance. Nor did the evaluation make mention of replacing the metal roof on the building or anything about the water system or sprinkler system. Plaintiff then obtained an estimate of $687,500 for roof repair/replacement, store front repair, a sprinkler system installer and a water system upgrade. 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

Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

September 17, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have spoken often about mechanic’s liens and the implications of such liens as they relate to bankruptcy here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Loudoun County, Virginia added another wrinkle to this discussion, that of standing and what happens on conveyance of the property and what interest in the property is required to allow a party to seek removal of the mechanic’s lien. In Leesburg Bldg. P’rs LLC v. Mike Berger Inc. the Loudoun County Circuit Court faced the following scenario. Leesburg Building Partners developed certain condominiums and hired Lansdowne Construction to perform the work as general contractor and paid Landsdowne in full for the work. Lansdowne hired Mike Berger, Inc. (“MBI”) to perform concrete work for the project. Landsdowne didn’t pay MBI approximately $48,000.00 and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. MBI, seeking to protect it’s interest in the money it was owed, recorded a mechanic’s lien on the property. Leesburg Building Partners filed an action to declare the lien invalid and have it removed from the property based upon its “payment defense” and the fact that it had paid Landsdowne in full. A relatively simple scenario and one that has been discussed before here at Musings. Not so fast. . . Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Lien Attaches To Landlord’s Interest When Landlord Is Party To Tenant Improvement Construction Contract

January 03, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are a landlord / lessor, then you want to maximize the protections afforded to you under Florida’s Lien Law in Florida Statute s. 713.10. These protections are designed to protect your property from liens for improvements performed by your tenant / lessee. The intent is that if you comply with s. 713.10, then a tenant improvement contractor’s recourse is against the leasehold interest, and NOT against the interest of the real property (or your interest as the landlord / lessor). Needless to say, it is imperative that a landlord / lessor make efforts to comply with this section when a tenant is performing tenant improvements, even when the landlord is contributing money to those improvements. Section 713.10 provides in material part:

(1) Except as provided in s. 713.12, a lien under this part shall extend to, and only to, the right, title, and interest of the person who contracts for the improvement as such right, title, and interest exists at the commencement of the improvement or is thereafter acquired in the real property. When an improvement is made by a lessee in accordance with an agreement between such lessee and her or his lessor, the lien shall extend also to the interest of such lessor.

(2)(a) When the lease expressly provides that the interest of the lessor shall not be subject to liens for improvements made by the lessee, the lessee shall notify the contractor making any such improvements of such provision or provisions in the lease, and the knowing or willful failure of the lessee to provide such notice to the contractor shall render the contract between the lessee and the contractor voidable at the option of the contractor.

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

Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

June 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion in limine seeking to dismiss the insureds' complaint due to the absence of expert testimony. Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74069 (E.D. N.Y. May 30, 2014). During the policy period, the insureds noticed their house had serious structural problems, including cracks in the walls and floors that were pitched toward the rear of the house. The insureds had to move from their house. When they submitted a claim, it was denied by Lexington because the losses were caused by "wear and tear, deterioration, earth movement, settlement, shrinking, bulging or expansion of the property leading to cracking of structural components." The insureds sued. Lexington filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the insureds' expert and to dismiss the complaint for inability to offer prima facie proof of a covered loss absent such expert testimony. 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