SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Construction Venture Sues LAX for Nonpayment

February 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Construction joint venture Walsh/Austin filed suit against the Los Angeles International Airport, claiming that “the airport failed to properly pay more than $2.4 million to an electrical subcontractor,” according to The Daily Breeze. Furthermore, SASCO, the electrical firm, alleged that they were “given inaccurate design documents that made it impossible for the company to carry out the work at the agreed-upon rate.” The complaint, as reported by The Daily Breeze, cited “other lawsuits brought by an Orange County plastering firm and a Buena Park door company” and suggested that “eventually, all the litigation tied to nonpayment at LAX will end up in the same courtroom.” Nancy Castles, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles World Airports, told The Daily Breeze that “the agency does not comment on pending litigation.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

February 28, 2022 — Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company1 benefits insureds seeking to establish an insurer’s duty to defend. As a matter of first impression, the court clarified that insureds have the burden to prove that an exception to a policy exclusion applies in order to trigger the insured’s duty to defend. However, while the policyholder may use extrinsic evidence to establish the insurer’s duty to defend, the insurer may not use extrinsic evidence to deny that duty. The facts of the underlying claim are set in the 2000s when the insured subcontractors worked to build thousands of homes in Nevada. The subcontractors were insured by Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) during that period. After the homes were complete, the subcontractors switched from Zurich to Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”). Between 2010 and 2013, homeowners brought claims against the subcontractors alleging that the properties were damaged due to construction defects. The subcontractors tendered the claims to Zurich as the insurer at the time of construction. Zurich then sought defense and indemnification from Ironshore. Ironshore denied coverage under a “continuing and progressive” policy exclusion, claiming that the property damage occurred due to faulty work that predated the Ironshore policy. Notably, an exception to the exclusion applied if “sudden and accidental” property damage occurred within the Ironshore policy period. Given that the underlying lawsuits did not include specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred, Ironshore and Zurich disagreed on whether the exception to the exclusion was triggered.. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

---

New OSHA Rule Creates Electronic Reporting Requirement

June 22, 2016 — John K. Baker & Kevin Conrad – White and Williams LLP
The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a Final Rule revising portions of its Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses regulations (Recording and Reporting Regulations). The revisions take effect August 10, 2016. Employers subject to the new requirements have until July 1, 2017 to submit electronically the required information for calendar year 2016. OSHA will make electronically-submitted workplace-safety data for each reporting employer available publicly in an online database. Reprinted courtesy of John K. Baker, White and Williams LLP and Kevin Conrad, White and Williams LLP Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Conrad may be contacted at conradk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Florida trigger

May 18, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Johnson-Graham-Malone, Inc. v. Austwood Enterprises, Inc., No. 16-2009-CA-005750-XXXX-MA (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Duval County, April 29, 2011), insured JGM was the general contractor for an apartment project completed in 1998. In 2007, the project owner sued JGM seeking damages for defective construction resulting in moisture penetration property damage. JGM tendered its defense to Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense. JGM defended and settled the underlying suit and then filed suit against Amerisure seeking recovery of defense and settlement costs. The trial court granted JGM’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court first addressed Amerisure’s duty to defend. Applying Florida law, the court held that, although the underlying complaint alleged that the property damage was not discovered until after expiration of the Amerisure policies



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Record Searchlight reports that while new construction is down in Redding, California, residential and commercial remodel permits are up 17 percent. By August 2010, there had been 63 housing and commercial business starts in Redding, while this year has seen only 15.

One such remodel, that of Parkview Market, will cost about $201,000. Safeway is planning on two $80,000 remodels of its grocery stores in Redding. In all, the 150 building permits for remodels are worth a total of $2.8 million.

Read the full story…

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

---

Bank Sues over Defective Windows

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis replaced 498 windows in its building in 2008. According to a consultant, they all have to be replaced again. The bank estimates that the damages will exceed $1.5 million, and they are suing the contractor who installed them, the window manufacturer, and others. The windows were replaced to provide greater blast protection. But in 2011, the bank found that the special glass used was beginning to delaminate. The Federal Reserve is seeking to have all of the windows replaced “with windows that meet the specifications of the contract.” McCarthy Building Construction says that it is attempting to resolve things. The contractor noted that it is “continuing to work with the Federal Reserve and other parties and hope we can resolve this matter in a timely manner.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief

March 25, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Perhaps it should come as no surprise, but public entities get special treatment under the law, and when filing a claim against a public entity, in most cases, a claimant is required to file a claim with the public entity before filing suit under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §810 et seq.). But, as the next case demonstrates, that’s not always the case. In Stronghold Engineering Incorporated v. City of Monterey, 96 Cal.App.5th 1203 (2023), the 6th District Court of Appeals examined whether a public works contractor that alleged an extended overhead claim was required to file a Government Claims Act claim before filing suit when its initial complaint was limited to a claim for declaratory relief. The Stronghold Case In December 2015, general contractor Stronghold Engineering Incorporated entered into a construction contract with the City of Monterey for the renovation of the City’s conference center and an adjacent city-owned plaza. The construction contract provided that any modification to the construction contract had to be approved by the City through a written change order. No surprise there. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of Franklin v. Mitchell. Walter Mitchell, doing business as Southern Classic Construction built a new home for the Franklins. The Franklins moved into the home in October 2001. In April 2006 they discovered sagging floors in both the bathroom and kitchen. They contacted Mitchell who suggested the flooring might be defective. The Franklins spent eight months attempting to contact the flooring manufacturer.

In March 2007, the Franklins had the home inspected. The sagging was determined to be due to a loss of strength in the decking because of condensation from the air conditioning system. Air returns were not properly sealed and drawing moisture into the structure. There was mold on the decking and floor joints.

When Mitchell was contacted by the Franklins, he told them his one-year warranty had expired but had the HVAC subcontractor, Southern Mechanical Heating & Air (owned by Mitchell’s father, Jim Mitchell), look at the situation. SMHA replaced and braced subfloors. Later, they entered the crawl space to tape ducts, seal the air return, and insulate the air vent housing. The Franklins were not satisfied with the repairs, as not all the ducts were taped, nor were the air vent housings insulated.

Franklin complained to Walter Mitchell who again cited his one-year warranty. Jim Mitchell said he would not report complaints to his insurer, stating that the repairs were unnecessary, that the work had been done correctly in the first place, and it was only done at the request of Walter Mitchell.

In February 2009, the Franklins sued Walker Mitchell. Mitchell denied the claims, citing in part the statute of limitations. Mitchell also filed complaints against three subcontractors, including his father’s firm. Mitchell received a summary judgment as the case started after Alabama’s six-year statute of limitations.

The appeals court rejected the Franklin’s argument that the claim of damage did not start until they were aware it was due to a construction defect. The court noted that as Walter Mitchell was licensed as a “residential home builder, the statute the Franklins cite did not apply, as it concerns architects, engineers, and licensed general contactors.”

Nor did they feel that Mitchells’ claim that his warranty had expired were sufficient to override the statute of limitations, quoting an earlier case, “Vague assurances do not amount to an affirmative inducement to delay filing suit.” Their claim of subsequent negligent repairs was rejected because Mitchell did not direct the specific actions taken by his father’s firm.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---