SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A California court ruled that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that had been approved by the city of San Francisco was adequate for the proposed 8,000-home development on Treasure Island, according to the San Francisco Business Times. The suit had been brought by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island back in 2011. However, in December of 2012, “a lower court affirmed the EIR and the citizens’ group appealed that decision.” The project was proposed by partners Lennar Corp. and Wilson Meany. The development would “add thousands of new housing units along with retail, hotel and office space in addition to renovating historic buildings and creating 300 acres of open space.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Tigard-Tualatin School District in Tigard, Oregon filed a lawsuit against Robinson Construction for water damage to the Alberta Rider Elementary school, built in 2005, according to The Oregonian. The school district “is seeking $1.4 million in damages.” According to the suit, as quoted by The Oregonian, the school district “holds Robinson responsible for faulty construction of the school’s panel siding, windows, doors, exterior walls and more.” Repairs began in December of 2011, reported The Oregonian, and the cost so far is more than one million: “The district had to replace parts of the ‘exterior wall cladding system’ and remove and reinstall ‘storefront windows and window/door assemblies to ensure watertight performance,’ in addition to other alterations, the lawsuit reads.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement

January 13, 2020 — Danielle Ward, Esq. - Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
In July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract. The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret. The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech. The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.” The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding. In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement. Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit. The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms. Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

October 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that “[t]he Penn Avenue reconstruction project in Garfield, described as ‘a comedy of errors’ by one neighborhood leader, remains months behind schedule and has gone well over budget.” The $4.7 million construction budget has increased “by at least $800,000,” according to the Pittsburgh post-Gazette. Problems included the underground utilities not on maps or mapped inaccurately, water lines breaking, and old streetcar tracks were discovered to have contaminated soil. Rick Swartz, executive director of the Bloomfield-Garfield Corp., told the Gazette that the project has been “plagued with problems and poor communication from the very start.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Working Safely With Silica: Health Hazards and OSHA Compliance

January 17, 2022 — Rick Pedley - Construction Executive
About 2.3 million American workers are exposed to silica, including those in construction, oil and gas, agriculture and manufacturing. Silica is commonly found in a range of construction materials and when this material breaks apart, small particles are released into the air, creating what’s known as respirable crystalline silica. These particles can get into a person’s respiratory tract, which can lead to a range of serious and potentially fatal illnesses including silicosis, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney diseases. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set clear regulations for working with this substance, so construction workers and managers can know the risks of inhaling this substance and protect themselves on the job site. What is Silica? Crystalline silica is a mineral that forms naturally in the earth. Raw construction materials such as sand, stone, concrete and mortar often contain deposits of crystalline silica, which can put employees at risk. Silica becomes a danger to workers when it is released into the air and breathed in. Reprinted courtesy of Rick Pedley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New Rule Prohibits Use of Funds For Certain DoD Construction and Infrastructure Programs and Projects

May 30, 2018 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Recently, our colleagues Glenn Sweatt and Alex Ginsberg published their Client Alert titled DFARS Clause Blocks Funding for Unsafe Projects in Afghanistan, Recently published regulation implements the FY17 NDAA to prohibit use of funds for DoD construction and infrastructure programs and projects in Afghanistan that cannot be safely accessed by U.S. Government personnel. Takeaways include:

New rule prevents Government contracting officers from funding projects that are not able to be safely accessed by Government civilian or military personnel, as these may pose an increased risk of fraud, corruption or waste, or lack efficient oversight.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---

Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

July 23, 2014 — Scott Patterson - CD Coverage
In J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., * Fed.Appx. *, 2014 WL 3377690 (11th Cir. 2014), claimant property owner Sun City contracted with insured general contractor J.B.D. for the construction of a fitness center. The fitness center was to be physically connected to an existing Sun City building. J.B.D. utilized subcontractors for some of the work. Shortly after completion, leaks developed in the fitness center’s roof, windows and doors which J.B.D. attempted to fix. After Sun City refused to make the final contract payment, J.B.D. sued Sun City for contract amounts owed. Sun City counterclaimed for the construction defects, alleged damage to the fitness center and other property. J.B.D. tendered defense of the counterclaim to its CGL insurer Mid-Continent. After Mid-Continent failed to agree to defend, J.B.D. settled with Sun City, paying Sun City $182K. Following several demands from J.B.D. for reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement amount, Mid-Continent tendered the defense costs minus a deductible. J.B.D. then sued Mid-Continent for breach of duties to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment, the federal district trial court entered judgment for Mid-Continent, finding no duties to defend or indemnify. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the duty to defend while affirming on the duty to indemnify. Applying Florida law, the court first held that the defective work, including the defective installation of the fitness center’s windows, doors, and roof, did not constitute “property damage.” Thus, the costs to repair or replace the defective work did not constitute damages because of “property damage.” The court next held that, while damage to other portions of the fitness center would constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” all such “property damage” fell within the “your work” exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

---

Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries

July 30, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (No. B252566, filed June 18, 2015), the Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of a brake grinding machine. The Court cited an exception to the general rule that manufacturers may not be held liable, under a strict products liability theory, where the plaintiff’s injuries arise from other products that are used in conjunction with the defendant’s product. Plaintiff and appellant, Michael Sherman, was an automobile mechanic from 1962 to 1977. Mr. Sherman alleged that during this period he used an arcing machine, which abraded brake linings by means of sand paper moving at high speeds. Sherman alleged the machine released asbestos dust, which he then brought home, exposing his wife Debra Sherman to asbestos. Ms. Sherman developed mesothelioma and passed away from exposure to the asbestos dust carried home by her husband. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---