SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

OSHA announced that its current rules on fall protection for residential construction will remain in place until September 15, 2012. The current measures became effective in June 2011. Under the new rules, falls must be prevented by fall protection measures unless the measures can be shown to be unfeasible or even hazardous.



Under the extension of the temporary enforcement measures, contractors who ask for compliance assistance with OSHA are given top priority and penalties can be reduced. OSHA has conducted more than 1,000 outreach sessions on the new rules.

Read the full story…

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

---

Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

February 25, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
Last week, the California appellate courts decided two cases with ramifications under the Right to Repair Act. The first case, Burch, addresses whether the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for the homeowner. The second case, KB Home, addresses a situation where a homeowner or the homeowner's insurer fails to follow the procedures under the Right to Repair Act. Last August, the Fourth Appellate District announced its decision in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 holding that SB 800 is not a homeowner’s exclusive remedy in situations where defects cause actual damage. Many lawyers believed that Liberty Mutual would be a one-off because of its facts – it was a subrogation case brought by an insurance company. So much for that. Now the Second Appellate District is getting into the act. In Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., the Second Appellate District overturned an order granting summary adjudication in favor of a developer, general contractor, and their respective owners, in a construction defect action brought by a residential homeowner. The trial court found that the Right to Repair Act precluded the homeowner’s negligence and implied warranty claims but the Court of Appeal reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Crookston Times reports that the I-35W Bridge collapse that occurred five years ago in Minneapolis, Minnesota, killing 13 people and injuring another 145, may have been caused by “inadequate load capacity.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report stated that it is “a simple design flaw in metal plates that help connect one steel beam to another.” Due to the findings, “the NTSB set new safety recommendations for bridge design plans, bridge inspection and training of bridge inspectors.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Surety’s Several Liability Under Bonds

March 20, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a payment or performance bond is issued on behalf of its bond-principal, the surety is jointly and severally liable with its bond-principal. This means the surety has several liability under the bond, i.e., you don’t need to pursue the principal of the bond to pursue liability under the bond, which is a separate written intrument. Thus, if you are claiming damages of $500,000, by way of example, you can sue both the principal and surety under the bond, you can ONLY sue the principal under the bond (which is rarely practical), or you can ONLY sue the surety under the bond (which, oftentimes, is very practical). In many instances where I am pursuing a bond claim on behalf of a client, particularly a payment bond claim, I only sue the surety and do not sue the bond-principal unless there are certain strategic reasons in doing so. This is because of the surety’s several liability under the bond and there may be solvency issues with the principal or contractual reasons that, strategically, make much more sense to exclude the principal from the action. In MJM Electric, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2023 WL 2163087 (M.D.Fla. 2023), an electrical subcontractor was hired to perform electrical work by the prime contractor. The prime contractor had a payment bond. The project was delayed for two years. The electrical subcontractor claimed the prime contractor failed to compensate it for significant delays and out of scope work. 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

---

Ninth Circuit Issues Pro-Contractor Licensing Ruling

July 18, 2018 — Amy L. Pierce – Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On July 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its much anticipated and a pro-contractor ruling in MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. v. CVIN LLC. The appeal arose from a dispute over the scope of a California specialty contractor’s license and, more particular, involved whether the subcontractor’s performance of certain work was outside the scope of its license constituting a breach of contract and resulting in the contractor not being entitled to payment for its work (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031(a)). In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the matter, finding that “Nexlevel’s work here was ‘incidental and supplemental’ to the installation of these fiberoptic systems,” as contemplated by Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 16, § 831. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com

---

Prevent Costly Curb Box Damage Due on New Construction Projects

May 11, 2020 — Bob Welker - Construction Executive
For new construction projects in areas with acidic soils, keeping curb boxes in good working order is critical to avoid compromised water service, angry customers, and costly repair and replacement. Traditionally, a curb box is composed of a metal tube that connects the cast iron base to a cast iron lid/cap. It is necessary for water line repairs and shut off in case of flooding. Typically, they are buried six to eight feet below ground, beneath the frost line. Curb boxes are found on every water line that connects a building to a city water main. One major challenge is that many areas across the United States—including the East Coast, South, upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest—have acidic soil that rapidly corrodes cast iron infrastructure, including curb boxes. Soil with a pH of six or less is considered acidic. Reprinted courtesy of Bob Welker, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent

March 22, 2018 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates

Can a construction manager-agent / owner’s representative hired directly by the owner be liable to the general contractor in negligence? An argument likely posited by many general contractors on projects gone awry where there is a separate construction manager. Well, here is an interesting case out of Louisiana that supports a negligence claim against a construction manager-agent.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

September 04, 2018 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. BrassCraft Mfg., Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88986 (D.R.I. May 29, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island addressed the question of whether the defendant was so unfairly prejudiced by the subrogating insurer’s spoliation of evidence that dismissal of the plaintiff’s case was the appropriate Rule 37(b)(2)(a)(i)-(vi) sanction. The court, focusing on the potential for undue prejudice to the defendant, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams, LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---