Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

March 30, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back a good friend, Scott Wolfe. Scott is the founder of zlien, a cloud-based platform that gives construction industry participants control over their financial risk and payment processes. The zlien platform manages the mechanics lien compliance process for all parties in the contracting chain, automating and optimizing the exchange of preliminary notices, monitoring lien rights and exposure, and exchanging lien waivers. zlien empowers over 10,000 companies to optimize their credit and financial risk management, and works to promote a fair and transparent construction payment process, improve B2B relationships, facilitate faster payments, and reduce legal and financial risk. Sending preliminary notice is the most important step in mechanics lien compliance. A majority of states require preliminary notice (sometimes called a pre-lien notice or notice to owner) from contractors, material suppliers, and other construction parties. Even if preliminary notice is not required, however, it is best practice to send this document on all projects for a variety of reasons. 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

Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A construction wall collapsed on November 1 during heavy rainfall in New York City. Two women were briefly trapped under the rubble, while other bystanders worked to free them. Einstein Construction Group, a contractor based in Texas, was remodeling the first floor for a new tenant, a Japanese restaurant. The company, which disclaims responsibility for the occurrence, were cited for violations and a stop work order was issued. Just prior to the incident, high winds whipped through the area. The construction wall allegedly had not been securely attached to the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

February 22, 2021 — Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & Fears
On January 29, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued new employer guidance on mitigating and preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. This guidance is intended to help employers and workers outside the healthcare setting to identify risks of being exposed to and of contracting COVID-19 and to determine any appropriate control measures to implement. While this guidance is largely duplicative of prior OSHA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance and recommendations, it contains a few new and updated recommendations that employers should note: Face Coverings OSHA recognizes that face coverings, either cloth face coverings or surgical masks, are simple barriers that help prevent the spread of COVID-19, and are beneficial for the wearer as well as others. OSHA recommends that employers should provide all workers with face coverings, unless their work task requires a respirator. These face coverings should be provided at no cost and should be made of at least two layers of tightly woven breathable fabric, and should not have exhalation valves or vents. Employers should also require any other individuals at the workplace (i.e., visitors, customers, non-employees) to wear a face covering unless they are under the age of 2 or are actively consuming food or beverages on site. Wearing a face covering does not eliminate the need for physical distancing of at least six feet apart. Employers must discuss the possibility of “reasonable accommodations” for any workers who are unable to wear or have difficulty wearing certain types of face coverings due to a disability. In workplaces with employees who are deaf or have hearing deficits, employers should consider acquiring masks with clear coverings over the mouth. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

December 13, 2021 — Ryan Bennett - White and Williams LLP
In Sheckler v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co, 2021 IL App (3d) 190500, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 593, Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Insurer) paid its insured, Ronald McIntosh (McIntosh), for property damage following a fire in an apartment he rented to Monroe and Dorothy Sheckler (the Shecklers). Insurer filed suit against Wayne Workman (Workman), who performed service work on an oven in the Shecklers’ apartment that leaked gas and resulted in a fire. Workman filed a third-party complaint against the Shecklers for contribution and the Shecklers tendered the defense of the claim to Insurer. Insurer refused the tender and the Shecklers filed a declaratory judgment action. In the court below, the Shecklers argued that, as tenants, they were co-insureds on McIntosh’s property insurance policy. Following a liberal interpretation of precedent from the Supreme Court of Illinois in Dix Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaFramboise, 597 N.E. 2d 622 (Ill. 1992), an Illinois appellate court ruled that Insurer – who provided property insurance – must defend the tenants of a rental property from contribution claims if the tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s policy. In Sheckler, the Shecklers hired Workman to fix a broken burner on a gas stove. Finding that additional parts were needed, Workman left while the Shecklers waited inside. While waiting—and despite the smell of gas filling the kitchen—Mr. Sheckler lit the stove. “Kaboom!” wrote the appellate court when describing the scene. A fire erupted and caused substantial damage to the apartment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Bennett, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com

More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to SF Gate, almost “every one of the 423 steel rods that anchor the tower of the new Bay Bridge eastern span to its base has been sitting in potentially corrosive water, Caltrans officials said Tuesday — one of the most serious construction defects found yet on the $6.4 billion project.” About a year ago, “steel rods crucial to seismic-stabilizing structures on the bridge snapped when they were tensioned.” Fixing those rods cost $25 million, while an additional $20 million had been spent determing if “additional rods and bolts are at risk of failing.” In regards to the latest construction defects discovered, Caltrans’ chief engineer on the project, Brian Maroney, stated, “It’s not acceptable, and we’re going to fix it.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

July 13, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
According to a recent study conducted by the Harvard University, the University of Chicago, and the University of Illinois, more than 100,000 small businesses (firms with fewer than 500 employees) representing 2% of small businesses in the America have closed their doors permanently due to the coronavirus. The next case, although about events occurring before COVID-19, provides a glimpse of what litigation may look like in the intervening months and years as companies struggle to keep their doors open. The Wanke Case Waterproofing company Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. sued a former employee, Scott Keck, and his competing company, WP Solutions, Inc., for trade secret misappropriation and obtained a judgment for $1,190,929. At the time, general contractor AV Builder Corp. had hired WP Solutions as a waterproofing subcontractor on fire residential and commercial projects. In the face of the judgment obtained by Wanke, Keck declared bankruptcy and dissolved WP Solutions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

May 31, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As most contractors know, scope, price and time are the “big” three in any construction contract. Nearly as important, however, are the insurance provisions. Patricularly, when things go bad on a construction project. As the next case, Guastello v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company 61 Cal.App.5th 97 (2021) discusses, the difference between “claims-made” versus “occurrence-based” coverage can be extremely important. The Guastello Case In 2003 and 2004, subcontractor C.W. Poss Inc. built retaining walls in the Pointe Monarch housing development in Dana Point, California. Poss performed all related excavation, ground and grading work. In 2006, Thomas Guastello purchased a home in the development, and in January 2010, a retaining wall close to his lot suffered a massive failure that causing over $700,000 in damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law

February 06, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a negligence action, the issue of whether a duty applies is a question of law. See Limones v. School Dist. of Lee County, 161 So.3d 384, 389 (Fla. 2015) (“[T]he existence of a duty is a legal question because duty is the standard to which the jury compares the conduct of the defendant.”); McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992) (“Since duty is a question of law, an appellate court obviously could reverse based on its purely legal conclusion that no such duty existed.”). Thus, the trial court determines, as a matter of law, whether a legal duty of care applies in a negligence action. Florida law recognizes the following four sources of duty: (1) statutes or regulations; (2) common law interpretations of those statutes or regulations; (3) other sources in the common law; and (4) the general facts of the case. See id. Oftentimes it is the fourth source – the general facts of the case – that comes into play to determine whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES