SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The New York Times reports that a company paid to inspect concrete at major public works projects in New York has been charged with falsifying results. They had been hired by the city three years ago after their predecessor was found to have falsified results.



According to the Times, investigators found nothing legitimate in nearly three thousand reports. The owner and five employees of American Standard Testing and Consulting Laboratories have been indicted on twenty-nine counts, including charges under New York’s racketeering law. Prison terms could be up to twenty-five years.



Prior to the city’s contract with American Standard, the city employed a firm called Testwell. Testwell was found in 2008 to have falsified its test results.

Read the full story…

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

---

Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

October 12, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the coverage action that was parallel to a case pending in state court involving the same parties and same issues pending. Navigators Ins, Co. v. Chriso's Tree Trimming, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129711 (E.D. Calif. July 22, 2020). Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) entered into a tree, brush and wood removal contract with Mount F Enterprises, Inc. Mountain F subsequently entered into a subcontractor agreement with Chriso Tree Trimming, Inc. for work to be performed for PG&E. In August 2017, Chriso attempted to remove a tree, but the tree accidentally fell in the wrong direction and knocked down nearby powerlines. The powerlines came into contact with surrounding brush and started the "Railroad Fire." The fire was eventually contained on September 15, 2017, after 12, 407 acres were burned and 7 structures and 7 homes were destroyed. Five subrogation lawsuits were filed in state court against Chriso and Mountain F by various insurance companies that paid for the damage caused by the Railroad Fire. A policy limits demand to settle all claims against Chriso and Mountain F was made. Navigators insured Chriso for $9 million through a Commercial Excess Liability Policy, payable once all other insurance was exhausted. The policy included a "Professional Services Endorsement" (PSE Exclusion) that excluded coverage of "professional services." "Professional services" was defined through a list of 12 non-exclusive professions and services that generally referred to activities involving specialized knowledge or skill that was predominantly mental or intellectual in nature rather than physical or manual. 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

---

American Arbitration Association Revises Construction Industry Rules and Mediation Procedures

April 08, 2024 — Dennis Cavanaugh & Larry Grijalva - Construction Law Zone
The American Arbitration Association (AAA), one of the longest-standing and experienced alternative dispute resolution (ADR) administrators, has unveiled a significant update to its Construction Industry Rules and Mediation procedures. This update, last revised in 2015, became effective March 1, 2024. Changes to the AAA Construction Industry Rules are significant as these rules are incorporated by default in American Institute of Architects standard construction forms, which are widely used in the industry. Advancements in remote access technology drive a substantial number of new changes. Others are designed to streamline the arbitrator appointment process and certain prehearing procedures and to make arbitration more cost-efficient by enhancing the arbitrator’s case management authority. Some of the more notable changes are: Fast Track F-1: The limit for cases eligible for AAA’s Fast Track Procedures has been increased from $100,000 to $150,000 so long as no claim or counterclaim exceeds that amount. Reprinted courtesy of Dennis Cavanaugh, Robinson & Cole and Larry Grijalva, Robinson & Cole Mr. Cavanaugh may be contacted at dcavanaugh@rc.com Mr. Grijalva may be contacted at lgrijalva@rc.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Mark Wiechnik, a litigation partner at Herrick, Feinstein LLP, has started a seven-part series in which he looks at the misconceptions homeowner board members have when they’re facing construction defect lawsuits. He opens by setting the scene of unit owners “complaining of leaks, roof problems, mold and myriad of other issues”, but conflicting views on what to do about them. In his series, he looks at some of the most common mistaken assumptions and discusses how board members should respond. Wiechnik’s first misconception examined is the claim that “we should file a homeowners warranty claim right away!” He notes that this is “rarely a good idea,” since if the building is more than two years old, the warranty will only be worthwhile if the building is near collapse. He also notes that once you file a warranty claim, “the association is precluded from ever filing a lawsuit on that issue.” Additionally, Wiechnik points out that filing a warranty claim puts everything into the hands of an arbitrator, who gets control of the whole process and whose decision is final, whether the association is happy with the results. Further, he notes, “the program favors builders and contractors over the homeowners.” In his second section, he looks at the fears that if the developer is bankrupt, there is no point is suing. Here he notes that the money for repairs does not come from the developer, but “from the developer’s and subcontractor’s insurance carriers.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

August 11, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Mosser Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 09-4449 (6th Cir. July 14, 2011)(unpublished), claimant project owner Port Clinton contracted with insured general contractor Mosser for the construction of a building.  Following completion, Port Clinton sued Mosser for breach of contract seeking damages because of physical injury to the project occurring after completion resulting from defective backfill material that settled improperly.

Mosser’s CGL insurer Travelers denied a defense and Mosser filed suit against Travelers seeking a declaratory judgment. Mosser and Travelers filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the supplier of the backfill material?Gerken?qualified as a subcontractor for purposes of the subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion—exclusion l.—for property damage to or arising out of Mosser’s completed work.   Mosser had purchased the backfill material from Gerken pursuant to a purchase order specifying that Gerken was to supply Mosser with an industry standard grade of backfill for use in the Port Clinton project.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

June 03, 2019 — Scott Blair & Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record
Two British masonry experts familiar with centuries-old stone structures voiced concern that the catastrophic fire that collapsed the roof and spire of Notre Dame on April 15 could also have damaged stonework of the iconic Paris cathedral that may affect its stability. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Blair, ENR and Peter Reina, ENR Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

December 14, 2020 — Peter Shapiro, Drake Mirsch & Jade McKenzie - Lewis Brisbois
On November 19, 2020, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) proposed sweeping and significant new emergency standards to reduce employee exposure to COVID-19. These standards have been accepted by the Office of Administrative Law and are effective as of November 30, 2020. Accordingly, it is critical that employers familiarize themselves with these new requirements and begin to implement these standards as quickly as possible. The standards include COVID-19 prevention in the workplace, multiple COVID-19 infections and outbreaks in the workplace, “major” COVID-19 outbreaks in the workplace, prevention in employer provided housing, and prevention in employer-provided transportation to and from work. They apply to all California employers and places of employment, except places with one employee who does not have contact with others, employees working from home, or employees in specified health care facilities, services or operations when covered by section 5199. COVID-19 Prevention Program Employers are required to establish, implement, and maintain an “effective” written COVID-19 Prevention Program. Under the Program, an employer is responsible for developing a system for communicating about COVID-19, identifying and evaluating COVID-19 hazards, investigating and responding to COVID-19 cases, correcting COVID-19 hazards, providing training and instructions to employees regarding COVID-19, ensuring all employees are physically distanced, providing face coverings, implementing policies regarding personal protective equipment and recordkeeping, ensuring COVID-19 cases are excluded from the workplace, and prohibiting symptomatic employees from returning to work unless certain requirements are met. Reprinted courtesy of Peter Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois, Drake Mirsch, Lewis Brisbois and Jade McKenzie, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Mirsch may be contacted at Drake.Mirsch@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. McKenzie may be contacted at Jade.Mckenzie@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

You Are Not A “Liar” Simply Because You Amend Your Complaint

March 14, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In litigation, it is common for a plaintiff to amend their complaint. They may amend to add additional parties. To add new claims. To change the factual allegations. Or, to change the theme of their case. Most of the time, complaints are not verified by the plaintiff. Instead, complaints are drafted and signed by the plaintiff’s counsel. A question becomes: how prior reiterations of a complaint can be used against the plaintiff to show they are a bunch of “liars” by making amendments to their complaint. Sounds prejudicial to the plaintiff, right? Particularly if there is a jury. The reality is that amending complaints for various reasons is routine. Doing so does NOT make the plaintiff a liar and is not a vehicle that a defendant should use to create this inference. A defendant that tries to do so simply wants to detract from the substantive facts and issues. 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

---