SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Colorado Drillers Show Sensitive Side to Woo Fracking Foes

September 03, 2014 — Zain Shauk and Bradley Olson – Bloomberg
A fight over fracking is looming in Texas. Another stand-off is shaping up in Colorado. Yet drillers’ reactions couldn’t be more different. In Texas, drillers are doing their noisy in-your-face fracking as usual. Meanwhile, on a small farm about an hour from the Colorado Rocky Mountains, the oil industry is giving fracking a makeover, cutting back on rumbling trucks and tamping down on pollution. Oil companies in Colorado are responding to a rising tide of resentment as local communities and environmental activists vie to impose measures to ban fracking or restrict drilling. A series of ballot initiatives and other grass roots opposition around the country is seen as threatening the booming shale industry, even in oil-friendly Texas, where the U.S. energy renaissance began. Reprinted courtesy of Zain Shauk, Bloomberg and Bradley Olson, Bloomberg Mr. Shauk may be contacted at zshauk@bloomberg.net; Mr. Olson may be contacted at bradleyolson@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

February 25, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
On the blog Construction Contractor Advisor, Craig Martin answers the question of whether arbitration is always the best choice for resolving construction claims. His answer: “Some claims may benefit from arbitration, but the benefit is not always clear.” Martin brings forth four points to consider. First, AIA Contracts do not “push Arbitration.” Second, the cost of arbitration may be expensive: “You could well spend over $5,000 just to have the arbitrator decide your case—again, not to mention your own attorneys fees.” Third, arbitration doesn’t avoid discovery. And finally, “mediation is always an option, regardless of which way you pursue your claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Boston Contractor Faces More OSHA Penalties

February 21, 2022 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
The head of a Boston-based construction company that lost two workers in a fatal accident at a downtown Boston worksite last year now faces nearly $2 million in total fines after safety violations on a new project. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Remote Trials Can Control Prejudgment Risk

September 07, 2020 — Robert G. Devine, Victor J. Zarrilli & Kimberly M. Collins - White and Williams LLP
While courts across the country are largely unavailable to litigants demanding a jury trial, pre-judgment interest rules present an increasing penalty risk to a defendant wanting its day in court and may not always make a plaintiff whole. The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the manner in which people and industries operate across the board. In light of the need to maintain social distancing whenever possible, the use of technology to replace in-person appearances is becoming more commonplace. As more attorneys become comfortable with the remote platform, the willingness to consider a remote trial grows. With in-person jury trials suspended until further notice, it is important for attorneys and parties to consider the attendant consequences of the indefinite delay in waiting for a traditional jury trial. Aside from general inconvenience, continued delays may have a substantial financial impact, particularly with regard to the accumulation of pre-judgment interest. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Robert G. Devine, Victor J. Zarrilli and Kimberly M. Collins Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Collins may be contacted at collinsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

June 15, 2017 — Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:

While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Miller may be contacted at gjm@sdvlaw.com

---

Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

December 04, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer was successful on summary judgment in establishing it correctly denied coverage for collapse, but its motion was denied regarding the insureds' bad faith claim. Jones v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153102 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 7, 2018). The insureds' retaining wall collapsed. They tendered to State Farm under their homeowners policy. An engineer retained by State Farm determined that the wall buckled due to "excessive lateral earth pressure from retained soils behind the wall." The parties agreed that the soil, saturated by water from frequent rain, grew too heavy for the retaining wall to bear, causing the collapse. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

New Certification Requirements for Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns and Service-Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business Concerns Seeking Public Procurement Contracts

March 27, 2023 — Jennifer Harris, Timothy D. Matheny & Abby Bello Salinas - ConsensusDocs
Effective January 1, 2023, Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (VOSBs) and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (SDVOSBs) will be required to obtain Small Business Administration (SBA) certification to participate in any federal government agency VOSB or SDVOSB sole source or set-aside prime contracts. This change originated from a Final Rule (87 FR 73400) published by the SBA on November 29, 2022. As a result of this Final Rule, not only will VOSBs and SDVOSBs be required to re-visit, and in some cases re-apply for various certifications, but these new regulations will also impact joint ventures that rely on their member’s VOSB or SDVOSB status to bid public work. New Regulation Previously, a VOSB and SDVOSB could self-certify to perform set-aside and sole source projects on non-U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) procurements—a VOSB and SDVOSB only needed to be certified by the VA Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) when bidding on VA procurements contingent on its status. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Abby Bello Salinas, Law Clerk, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill

January 18, 2021 — Syed S. Ahmad & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The First Circuit recently held that a “Special Hazard and Fluids Limitation Endorsement” was ambiguous and therefore there was excess coverage for a fuel spill that occurred after a tanker-truck overturned. In Performance Trans. Inc. v. General Star Indem. Co., the First Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of General Star Indemnity Company. The District Court held that the excess policy General Star issued to Performance Trans. Inc. precluded coverage for a spill that resulted in the leaking of thousands of gallons of fuel. The District Court relied on the existence of a total pollution exclusion to bar coverage and held that the policy’s Special Hazards and Fluids Limitation Endorsement could not create an ambiguity that would afford coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---