SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Be a Good Neighbor: Protect Against Claims by an Adjacent Landowner During Construction

November 09, 2020 — Joshua Levy & Madeleine Bailey - Construction Executive
There’s nothing like working in an office while pilings are being pounded into the ground next door, leading to crashing sounds of pile driving and the attendant afternoon headaches. Fortunately, that’s often the extent of a neighboring project’s real inconvenience. In other cases, however, construction in close quarters can mark the beginning of costly and emotional disputes, which can escalate to costly legal battles during and after construction. NUISANCE AND STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CLAIMS Construction claims are often based on the concept of “nuisance,” or on structural damage to adjacent property. Nuisance claims are typically based on noise and dust from construction sites, while structural damage claims are based on direct physical damage caused by neighboring demolition, vibrations, excavation and dewatering. These types of claims can result in monetary damages for neighbor plaintiffs, loss of permits for contractors and reputational damage to the developer. In one recent case in New York City, the developer faces up to $10 million in damages in a lawsuit with a neighboring property owner. The developer was conducting excavation, dewatering and installation of steel sheet piles, which the plaintiff alleges caused its five-story building to settle and shift, rendering doors inoperable and causing extensive cracking and separation of floors and ceilings from walls and supports. The plaintiff filed its complaint on Jan. 24, 2019, and the lawsuit is ongoing, exemplifying that construction claims such as these can be time consuming and costly (Complaint, 642 East 14th St. v. 644 E. 14th Realty [N.Y. Sup. Ct. January 24, 2019]). Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Levy & Madeleine Bailey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Levy may be contacted at joshua.levy@huschblackwell.com

---

Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

January 24, 2022 — Laura H. Corvo - White and Williams LLP
Political pundits and legal scholars have been engaged in frenzied debate trying to decipher the fallout of the United States Supreme Court’s decision that stopped stopped the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) from enforcing its Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) which mandated that employers with 100 or more employees require workers to show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing. The Court’s decision prevents OSHA from enforcing its ETS until all legal challenges have been heard. Because the Court concluded that those legal challenges are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their argument that OSHA does not have the statutory authority to issue its vaccine and testing mandates, there is significant doubt that they will ever come to fruition. While the pundits and scholars have now had their say, employers, who are struggling to manage a highly contagious variant, a tight labor market, and employees with divergent and staunch views on vaccination, are also left wondering what the Court’s decision means for them and what they should be doing. Here are some key takeaways for employers in the aftermath of the Court’s decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura H. Corvo, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Corvo may be contacted at corvol@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

February 11, 2019 — Honolulu Star-Advertiser - Engineering News-Record
Jan. 10 --A series of "prematurely" awarded rail contracts doled out to construction companies as early as 2009 prompted delay claims and change orders that increased the cost of the Honolulu rail project by more than $354 million , according to a new report by the Hawaii State Auditor released today. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

May 21, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Property damage caused by a subcontractor's sheet piling was found to be within the policy's operation classification, which included "grading of land." Canal Indemn. Co. v. Margaretville of NSM, Inc., No. 13-13541 (11th Cir. April 15, 2014). Canal issued a CGL policy to the insured. The policy had a classification limitation provision: “This insurance applies to bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, advertising injury or medical expense arising out of only those operations that are classified and shown on the Commercial General Liability Coverage Declarations . . .” The policy's Declarations, in turn, referred to the operation classification as "Grading of Land - INCL. Borrowing, Filling or Back Filling." The policy did not define these terms. 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

---

The 2019 ISO Forms: Additions, Revisions, and Pitfalls

February 24, 2020 — Richard W. Brown, Michael V. Pepe & Janie Reilly Eddy - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) issued several new and revised endorsements for use with Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage forms, which became effective December 1, 2019, in most jurisdictions. The new ISO endorsements include several notable changes that Policyholders should be aware of, including revisions to existing Additional Insured (AI), Primary and Noncontributory, and Waiver of Subrogation endorsements, as well as a number of new AI and other endorsement forms. A summary of the more significant elements of new ISO endorsements is provided below. NEW ISO FORMS

• New AI Endorsements - Automatic Status for Completed Operations

For Contractors, Owners and other construction industry stakeholders, there are two new AI endorsements of note, CG 20 39 12 19 – Additional Insured – Owners, Lessee or Contractors – Automatic Status when Required in Written Construction Agreement with You (Completed Operations) and CG 20 40 12 19 – Additional Insured – Owners Lessees or Contractors – Automatic Status for Other Parties when Required in Written Construction Agreement (Completed Operations). AI coverage for Completed Operations is generally provided under form CG 20 37, which requires each additional insured to be listed in the endorsement schedule. The new ISO endorsements automatically extend AI status for Completed Operations without having to specifically identify each additional insured, thereby mirroring current AI endorsements that confer automatic AI status for Ongoing Operations (e.g. CG 20 33 and CG 20 38). Thus, the CG 20 39 and CG 20 40, correspond with CG 20 33 (ongoing operations), and CG 20 38 (ongoing operations), respectively, to extend AI coverage for Completed Operations. Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys Richard Brown, Michael V. Pepe and Janie Reilly Eddy Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Mr. Pepe may be contacted at mvp@sdvlaw.com Ms. Eddy may be contacted at jre@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In a decision authored by Judge Leslie E. Koybayashi, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii followed its prior decisions that construction defect claims were not covered because such claims do not arise from an occurrence. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 3 Builders, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88480 (D. Haw. June 24, 2013). 3 Builders, the insured, was sued by the Apartment Owners of Mililani Pinnacle for the faulty installation of a new roof. Pinnacle claimed the completed roofs were not properly installed.complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and other causes of action. 3 Builders tendered the defense to Nautilus, who accepted the tender and defended for three years. Nautilus, however, filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment on its coverage obligations. Nautilus sought summary judgment, contending there was no coverage because all of the claims arose from the contractual relationship to perform the roof work, and a breach of contract was not the type of fortuitous event covered by a CGL policy under Hawaii law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

A U.S. District Court Judge in Florida has ruled in favor of a company that sought to void a settlement agreement. The case, Water v. HDR Engineering, involved claims of construction defects at Florida’s C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir. The Tampa Bay Water Authority attributed these to both HDR Engineering’s design and Bernard Construction Company which had built the embankment. Bernard Construction filed a complaint against their subcontractor, McDonald.

Tampa Bay Water settled with Bernard Construction and McDonald, in an agreement that set a minimum and maximum settlement, but also would “prohibit Barnard and McDonald from presenting any evidence on several claims and positions of TBW, to require Barnard to call certain witnesses at trial, to preclude Barnard and McDonald from calling other witnesses, and to restrict the filing of trial and post-trial motions.” HDR Engineering moved to void the agreement as collusive.

The judge that the agreement¬? contained “133 paragraphs of ‘Agreed Facts’ that the parties stipulated would survive any order declaring the Settlement Agreement void or unenforceable.” He characterized these as stipulating “that Barnard neither caused nor contributed to TBW’s damages.” HDR motioned that a summary judgment be given to Barnard Engineering.

The court found that “the evidence identified by TBW is patently insufficient to survive summary judgment.” Further, TBW’s expert initially held Barnard responsible for “lenses, pockets, streaks and layers within the embankment,” but then later withdrew this assigning the responsibility to HDR. Further, the court notes that, “TBW’s arguments that lenses, pockets, streaks, and layers in the soil wedge caused or contributed to its damages and that Barnard is liable for those damages have been foreclosed by the Agreed Facts.”

As TBW failed to provide sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment, the court granted summary judgment, mooted the claim against McDonald, and terminated the agreement between TBW and the other parties.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/23/23) – Distressed Prices, Carbon Removal and Climate Change

June 05, 2023 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In this week’s roundup, we consider distressed property bonds and loans, cities that are sinking under their own skyscrapers, efforts to lower carbon emissions, the unexpected potential of dirty diapers as a building material, and so much more. Globally, more than $190 billion of property bonds and loans are trading at distressed prices, a result of China’s real estate woes. (Alice Huang and Erin Hudson, Bloomberg) PacWest Bancorp sees a stock market boost as it announces the sale of its real estate loans, valued at around $2.6 billion. (Jaiveer Shekhawat and Chibuike Oguh, Reuters) New construction home sales exceeded expectations for April while existing home sales dropped. (Anna Bahney, CNN) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---