Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage

February 05, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The broad asbestos exclusion found in a Business Owners policy barred coverage for the insured after it sold a building in which asbestos was discovered. Phillips v. Parmelee, 2013 Wisc. LEXIS 747 (Dec. 27, 2013). Prior to purchasing an apartment building, the insured had the building inspected. The report indicated that the building's heating supply ducts likely contained asbestos. The insured then sought to sell the building. The Real Estate Condition Report stated the insured was not aware of "asbestos or asbestos-containing materials on the premises." The buyers purchased the property. A contractor cut through asbestos-wrapped ducts, dispersing asbestos throughout the building. The buyers sued the insured for breach of contract/warranty and negligence in failing to adequately disclose defective conditions including asbestos. 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

California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

November 21, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Originally published by CDJ on April 20, 2017 Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed. The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . . Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

ENR 2024 Water Report: Managers Look to Potable Water Reuse

July 15, 2024 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
With nearly all seven states within the 250,000-sq-mile Colorado River basin scrambling to conserve their apportionments from the river system’s increasingly depleted resources, interest in securing alternative local drinking water supplies is soaring. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

September 03, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Prompt payment penalty cases do not come around very often, but when they do, there is bound to be fireworks. In James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., et al. (No. C072169, filed 8/27/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District upheld the trial court's discretion to not award prevailing party attorneys' fees to the party who won a prompt payment dispute. California Business and Professions Code §7108.5 and Public Contract Code §§7107 and 10262 are the mechanisms for obtaining prompt payment relief in California. As shown by the outcome, it is possible to win and lose at the same time. West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) was the prime contractor on a school construction project for Stockton Unified School District. West Bay entered into a subcontract agreement with James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) on the project. During construction there were disagreements between West Bay and Harris regarding the contractual scope of work, and Harris performed work it believed was outside the contract, believing it would be paid for the additional work. After West Bay refused to pay for the additional work, Harris left the project, and West Bay hired another subcontractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?

March 19, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As I posted recently, the Virginia General Assembly has passed, and I can see no reason why the governor won’t sign, a bill that would essentially invalidate preemptive contractual waivers of lien rights as they relate to subcontractors and material suppliers. It does not apply to General Contractors, but it is a step in what many (including those attorneys that represent subcontractors and suppliers) believe is the right direction. Of course, as soon as I posted last week, my friend and colleague Scott Wolfe (@scottwolfejr) commented on that post and then gave his two cents worth at his Zlien blog. The gist of the comments here at Musings and the post over at his blog was essentially that these contractual provisions were inherently unfair and therefore should be abolished because of both a relative disparity in leverage between the Owner or GC and the Subcontractor when it comes to negotiations and the fact that subcontractors often don’t read their contracts or discuss them with a construction attorney prior to signing them. I hear this first of his arguments often when I am reviewing a contract after the fact and a client or potential client acts surprised that a provision will be enforced and the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia will actually enforce them. As to Scott’s second reason, I have always warned here at Musings that you should read your contracts carefully because they will be the law of your business relationship in the future. The first of his two points is more interesting and in some ways more easily supported. However, where we are speaking of contracts between businesses where both sides are bound by the terms of the contract, it begs the question of whether in seeking to make contracts more “fair” we could add a layer of uncertainty that could cause more problems than it solves. Do we really want courts stepping in after the fact to renegotiate the terms of a deal that was struck months or possibly years before because one judge believes that the deal was too one sided? Do we really need such “Monday morning quarterbacking?” Is one person’s idea of “fair” better than another’s when both parties to the contract had the full ability to read, negotiate and possibly reject the deal long ago? Personally, I think that the answer to these questions is, in all but the most egregious cases or where the legislatures have stepped in adding certainty (whether to the good or bad), “No.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

January 14, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Timothy J. Abeska, a vice-chair of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Construction Law Practice Group, analyzed Goodrich Quality Theaters, Inc. v. Fostcorp Heating and Cooling, Inc., 16 N.E.3d 426 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), which “provides an example of a court enforcing contract provisions rather than markings on construction drawings that are inconsistent with contract requirements.” The case evolved from a dispute on a construction of an IMAX theater, when the general contractor did not understand the architect’s markings for non-standard joist girders, and ordered standard joist girders, per the contract. The error created delays and other problems, which led to payment disputes and mechanic’s liens against the project. Abeska stated that “[t]his case shows the importance of making sure all documents which comprise a construction contract are consistent with each other, as courts will enforce contracts negotiated by the parties. The case also demonstrates that litigation is not a quick process, as the Court of Appeals Opinion was issued more than seven years after the project was completed.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

August 16, 2021 — The Surety & Fidelity Association of America
August 10, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the U.S. Senate for passing the historic, bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The $1.2 trillion deal will lay the foundation for extensive improvements in the nation’s roadways, bridges, railways, waterways and broadband access. “Investing in infrastructure will create millions of jobs across the country, growing our national and local economies in both the short and long term,” said SFAA president and CEO, Lee Covington. “The surety industry fully supports this investment and will continue to provide the essential protections necessary to support our country’s infrastructure needs through our suite of products and services.” SFAA also commends the inclusion of the Van Hollen 2354 amendment to the bill, accepted by a unanimous vote of 97-0. The amendment requires payment and performance bonds on all federally-financed infrastructure projects receiving loans and grants under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), protecting taxpayers’ dollars, ensuring project completion, protecting local small business contractors and workers, and promoting economic growth. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. https://www.surety.org/ Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin Doctrine

September 13, 2021 — Peter Roth – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America
September 9, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the decision of The Supreme Court of The State of Washington to reverse the lower court ruling in the case of Lake Hills Investments, LLC vs. Rushforth Construction Co. As argued by SFAA, the Supreme Court found the contractor should not be responsible for damage caused by the defective design provided by the owner even where the contractor was responsible for certain defective work. In addition, the contractor is not completely barred from asserting this defense if the defects were caused by a combination of deficient performance by the contractor and deficient design, and proportional liability should be determined. The SFAA, along with the National Electrical Contractors Association Puget Sound Chapter (NECA), Mechanical Contractors Association of Western Washington (MCAWW) and SMACNA-Western Washington (SMACNA), issued an Amici Curiae in support of Petitioner AP Rushforth Construction Co., Inc. d/b/a AP Rushforth, and Adolfson & Peterson, Inc.’s (collectively “AP”) Petition for Discretionary Review. In the brief they argued the Court should grant the Petition because the decision by the lower court is contrary to precedent of limiting a contractor’s liability when the owner’s defective plans and specifications caused the defective work, and upsets settled expectations of allocation of risk and liability between contractors, owners and architects (among others) on construction projects. This allocation of risk and the principle of limiting the contractor’s liability for defective work based on defective plans and specifications is long settled doctrine in Washington State and throughout the country, a doctrine based on the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in U.S. vs. Spearin more than 100 years ago. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. www.surety.org Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Roth, SFAA
Mr. Roth may be contacted at proth@surety.org

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES