Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

How To Fix Oroville Dam

January 04, 2018 — Henry W. Burke - Engineering News - Record
Originally Published by CDJ on March 22, 2017 On Sunday, Feb. 12, California officials ordered the immediate, mandatory evacuation of 188,000 residents from towns below the Oroville Dam. Two days later, when federal and state officials deemed the dam safe, the evacuation order was rescinded, and people were allowed to return to their homes. It isn't often that hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. have to leave their homes because of worries about a catastrophic structural failure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Henry W. Burke, ENR
Mr. Burke may be contacted at hwburke@cox.net

HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

December 27, 2021 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
For over twenty years, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell has embodied and exemplified the principles of service and stewardship. In everything we do, we focus on serving our clients selflessly and to the best of our ability. In doing so, we always have in the forefront of our minds our obligation to act as the stewards of our clients’ trust, confidences, and resources. The firm itself, along with Carin Ramirez (in the area of Litigation - Insurance), and Dave McLain (in the area of Construction) were all recognized in this year's edition of the U.S. News Best Lawyers Journal. We could not be more proud of the firm we have created, or the service we are able to provide to Colorado's construction industry and its insurers. Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fast-Moving Isaias Dishes Out Disruption in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

August 24, 2020 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Far from the most powerful storm to strike the Eastern Seaboard, Hurricane Isaias nevertheless proved disruptive enough to rival some infrastructure impacts from Superstorm Sandy in 2012 while also raising concerns about the potential of additional doses of destruction arriving in the coming months. Jim Parsons, 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

Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

September 08, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Construction Blog
Lawyers love writing about indemnification. There are seventeen blog articles on our website alone that deal with the subject. Before you click out of this email in disgust that we are rehashing a stale topic, this post contains some practical advice for contractors and subcontractors dealing with the perplexing issues of indemnification and additional insured provisions. The concept of indemnity is based on a contractual agreement made between two parties, in which one party agrees to pay for the potential losses or damages caused by the other party. To indemnify someone means to protect that person or entity by promising to pay the cost of possible future damage, loss, or injury. When signing a contract, you should identify the indemnity obligations that could cost your business money. Finding the words “hold harmless” or “indemnify” in a proposed contract is not enough. The terms “hold harmless,” “save harmless,” or “indemnify” are a big part of the indemnification obligation. Although insurance requirements (“additional insured” clauses) accomplish virtually the same thing as very broad, unfair, or unlimited indemnity terms do, they result in an “end run” around the effort to limit the indemnification obligation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Punitive Damages In Most Wrongful Death Actions

June 05, 2023 — John Hackett & Jarred Reed - Lewis Brisbois
Madison County, Ill. (May 19, 2023) – On May 18, 2023, the Illinois legislature passed House Bill 0219, amending the Illinois Wrongful Death Act to allow for the recovery of punitive damages in wrongful death actions. The bill will soon be sent to the Governor’s desk for signature. If signed into law, the statutory change will allow heirs of decedents to recover punitive damages in wrongful death actions. The proposed amendment to the Illinois Wrongful Death Act is underlined below: Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages including punitive damages when applicable, in respect thereof, then and in every such case the person who or company or corporation which would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, including punitive damages when applicable, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony. Nothing in this Section affects the applicability of Section 2-1115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 2-102 or 2-213 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. Punitive damages are not available in action for healing art malpractice or legal practice or in an action against the State or unit of local government or an employee of a unit of local government in his or her official capacity. The changes made to this Section by this amendatory Act of the 103rd general Assembly apply to actions filed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act. Reprinted courtesy of John Hackett, Lewis Brisbois and Jarred Reed, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Hackett may be contacted at John.Hackett@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Reed may be contacted at Jarred.Reed@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers

October 30, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that one insurer could seek contribution from another insurer who settled with and secured a release from the insured. Potomac Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n Ins. Co., 2013 N.J. LEXIS 847 (N.J. Sept. 16, 2013) The township of Evesham retained Roland Aristone, Inc. to be its general contractor for construction of a new middle school. After completion of the school, the roof leaked. Evesham sued Aristone for the construction defects. Aristone tendered to its various CGL carriers. Two insurers, Selective Way Insurance Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company, defended. Two others, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Insurance Company (PMA) and Royal Insurance Company, denied coverage. Aristone sued PMA and Royal, and ultimately settled with PMA for $150,000 in exchange for Aristone's release from all claims, including claims for defense fees and costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

April 27, 2020 — Karen C. Bennett, Katherine I. Funk & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis Brisbois
An ever-expanding number of states and local government authorities are issuing “shelter in place” or “stay at home” orders that restrict the movement of employees of non-essential businesses. These orders have prompted many businesses to question whether they qualify as “essential,” requiring employees to continue working. With substantial differences among the stay at home orders – and even potential conflicts between state and local directives – it is a matter of extreme urgency for businesses to determine whether they fall within the definition of “essential,” particularly as many of these orders include civil and criminal penalties. Developments are unfolding very quickly, and clients we are advising are encountering law enforcement visits and threats of criminal prosecution as a consequence of decisions to stay open. As these designations are heavily fact-specific, and being revised, advance preparation and advice of counsel are essential. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys Karen C. Bennett, Katherine I. Funk and Jane C. Luxton Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Funk may be contacted at Katherine.Funk@LewisBrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

October 26, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers. The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”). After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES