Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Almost Nothing Is Impossible

October 30, 2018 — Brian N. Krulick - Smith Currie
In today’s ever-changing legal and political climate, contractors are being forced to deal with events and circumstances that seemed improbable just a short time ago. These changing circumstances have led some contractors to question whether they are required to continue performing in the face of uncertainty and, in many cases, potentially large losses. The doctrines of impossibility and impracticability, if proven, can serve as powerful defenses and excuse performance of a construction contract. However, contractors should exercise great caution before relying on these defenses as an excuse for nonperformance, as the consequences of stopping work without proper justification can be disastrous. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian N. Krulick, Smith Currie
Mr. Krulick may be contacted at bnkrulick@smithcurrie.com

Don’t Sign a Contract that Doesn’t Address Covid-19 (Or Pandemics and Epidemics)

December 14, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Do yourself a favor: Don’t sign a construction contract that doesn’t address COVID-19 or any pandemic or epidemic from this point forward! As the number of COVID-19 numbers rise, it would be reasonable to think this could have an impact on ongoing or future construction projects. For this reason, I want to revisit the subject of addressing COVID-19 (and any pandemic or epidemic) in your construction contract. The potential impact caused by COVID-19 could result from governmental regulations that impact construction of the project, shutdowns due to affected workers, owners’ decisions to suspend performance or adjust the way the project is being constructed, increased deep cleaning requirements, and increased measures associated with social distancing and re-sequencing of shifts. This all plays into the timeliness of performance and the productivity of manpower and equipment usage. When submitting a price, a lot of these considerations may not be factored in because doing so could lead to a price that will never get accepted. 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

Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

April 17, 2019 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP has moved its Sacramento office to a new location. Effective March 18, 2019, Haight’s new Sacramento office address is: 500 Capitol Mall Suite 2150 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.702.3200 F: 916.570.1947 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Mendocino Hospital Nearing Completion

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital is well underway on its plans to move to a larger facility. The new building in Willits, California, will be more than twice the size of the old building at 74,000 square feet. Construction has reached the halfway point after just over three months of construction. Despite that, plans are to put the facility into use in January 2015. The general contractor for the project is HBE Corporation. Rick Bockmann, HBE’s chief executive officer, said that the hospital was “on schedule and on budget.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Court-Side Seat: As SCOTUS Decides Another Regulatory “Takings” Case, a Flurry of Action at EPA

July 19, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
This is a brief account of some of the important environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court decided this regulatory “takings” case, and, in a Per Curium opinion, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that that petitioners had to exhaust their state administrative remedies before they could file this lawsuit under 42 USC Section 1983. The City government had already come to a sufficient regulatory conclusion, and the Constitution does not require additional processing. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit ignored last term’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

May 31, 2021 — Paulo Flores, Timothy D. Matheny & Jackson Mabry - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The Texas Legislature has just sent Senate Bill 219 (“S.B. 219”) to the Governor for signature; if this legislation is signed by the Governor, it will further erode the Texas legal doctrine that makes the contractor the warrantor of owner-furnished plans and specifications unless the prime contract specifically places this burden on the owner. Background 49 states follow what is known as the Spearin doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Spearin) in which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-furnished plans and specifications. Texas, on the other hand, follows the Texas Supreme Court created Lonergan doctrine, which has been an unfortunate presence in Texas construction law since 1907. In its “purest form,” as stated by the Texas Supreme Court, the Lonergan doctrine prevents a contractor from successfully asserting a claim for “breach of contract based on defective plans and specifications” unless the contract contains language that “shows an intent to shift the burden of risk to the owner.” Essentially, this then translates into the contractor warranting the sufficiency and accuracy of owner-furnished plans and specifications, unless the contract between them expressly places this burden on the owner. Over the years some Texas courts of appeal had ameliorated this harsh doctrine, but in 2012, the Texas Supreme Court indicated Lonergan was still the law in Texas, in the case of El Paso v. Mastec. In 2019, the Texas Legislature took the first step toward hopefully abrogating the Lonergan doctrine by implementing a new Chapter 473 to the Texas Transportation Code with respect to certain projects undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation, and Texas political subdivisions acting under the authority of Chapters 284, 366, 370 or 431 of the Transportation Code, adopting, as it were, the Spearin Doctrine in these limited, transportation projects. Now, the legislature has further chipped away at the Lonergan doctrine with the passage of S.B. 219. Reprinted courtesy of Paulo Flores, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Jackson Mabry, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Flores may be contacted at PFlores@Pecklaw.com Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com Mr. Mabry may be contacted at jmabry@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

December 07, 2020 — Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLP
On October 19, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina held that a “hazardous materials” exclusion contained in a CGL policy did not preclude a duty to defend the insured against claims alleging bodily injury resulting from direct exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which are man-made chemicals within the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs).[1] In Colony Insurance Company v. Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, the insured was named a defendant in hundreds of underlying suits relating to its manufacture of fire equipment containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a fire suppressant.[2] The underlying plaintiffs alleged that: (a) the AFFF contained PFOS and PFOA; (b) PFOA and PFOS are highly carcinogenic; and (c) exposure to AFFF contained in the defendants’ products caused bodily injury or property damage. Around a third of the underlying complaints alleged harm from both direct exposure to the foam and exposure through the environment. Representative language from those complaints was: “[d]uring [underlying plaintiff’s] employment as a firefighter and firefighter instructor, he was significantly exposed to elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA in their concentrated form as a result of regular contact with [d]efendant’s AFFF products and through PFOS and PFOA having contaminated the FireCollege well system.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

March 28, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.

The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”

Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.

After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.

La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.

La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”

The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”

The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.

As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES