Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

December 02, 2015 — Michael L. DeBona – White and Williams LLP
In Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., Certified Gunite Company d/b/a Custom Pools, and John M. Pieklo, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5438782 (3d DCA Sept. 16, 2015), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, discussed whether products liability claims related to a pool filter, a component part of a pool system, were subject to Florida’s twelve-year products liability statute of repose, section 95.031, Florida Statutes. The court held that a pool filter does not constitute an improvement to real property and, thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the statute of repose. Background Facts Ryan and Jessica Dominguez had a pool installed at their house; the delivery and installation of the pool and its filter were completed on December 20, 1999. Over twelve years later – on November 17, 2012 – the pool filter exploded, causing Mr. Dominguez a severe head injury. Mr. Dominguez and his wife brought a products liability action against, among others, the pool filter manufacturer and distributor, Hayward Industries, Inc., and the installer of the pool and intermediate distributor of the pool filter, Certified Gunite Company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

July 19, 2021 — Laurie A. Stanziale - ConsensusDocs
Most construction contracts contain insurance provisions setting forth the insurance required of the contractor or other downstream parties. Some provisions are detailed and lengthy while others are short and sweet, but all are of critical importance and should be fully understood by the contractor before signing the contract. Also, every insured should understand not only what the contract requires but more importantly what the actual policy states, as the policy, not the contract, will govern whether or not there is coverage. It is possible that certificates received will match the contractual requirements, but much of what the policy covers is not reflected on a certificate. Lurking behind the certificate is the policy, which is where the actual coverage lies. The endorsements or exclusions to the policy can make the certificates worthless pieces of paper. There are many exclusions that can cancel coverage for the work a contractor may perform. Height exclusions, residential exclusions, EFIS exclusions and many more, focus on the type of work or materials that the contractor is performing or using. One exclusion, however, focuses on who is insured and that exclusion alone can eliminate all coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com

Engineer Probing Champlain Towers Debacle Eyes Possibility of Three Successive Collapses

July 05, 2021 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
Though the trigger may remain a mystery for some time, by the end of the week, the structural engineer probing the partial progressive collapse of a 40-year-old Surfside, Fla., residential condominium expects to complete a computer model of the unstable, 12-story remains of the building. The computer model of the still-standing wing of Champlain Towers South will initially be used to alert the search and rescue team to suspend operations if a hurricane is coming. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

2020s Most Read Construction Law Articles

January 25, 2021 — ConsensusDocs
2020 was . . . well . . . well it was memorable. Among many other things, construction was recognized as essential and ConsensusDocs published industry firsts in addressing prefabricated construction and lean for design-build, as well as 8 comprehensively revised performance and payment bonds. We also saw unprecedented readership of our construction law newsletter. As we celebrate the end of 2020 and wish you a happy new year, we continue a new a tradition of recognizing the below most read construction law articles of the year. The ConsensusDocs Team. 5. Level 10 Construction v. Sea World LLC: Can Force Majeure Save Sea World? By: Jamey B. Collidge Associate, Troutman Pepper. 4. The Designer’s Pre-bid Standard Of Care In A Design-Build Project By: Joshua A. Morehouse Associate, Peckar & Abramson P.C. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

March 29, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
In a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case, the Court was tasked with determining whether the City of Atlanta’s compliance with the Georgia Payment Bond Statutes barred a subcontractor from recovery against it after the general contractor failed to pay and the surety became insolvent. Squared Plumbing Co., LLC (J. Squared), was a subcontractor on a project to clean up sewage spills in approximately 100 dwellings for the City of Atlanta. As required by the contract executed with the City, the general contractor, Scott and Sons Holdings, LLC (Scott and Sons), obtained a $200,000 payment bond from its surety, First Seaford Surety, Inc. (First Seaford). J. Squared sought to collect on the payment bond when Scott and Sons failed to pay J. Squared for the work it performed on the project. However, First Seaford became insolvent. J. Squared subsequently filed a claim against Scott and Sons and the City to recover $140,000 for its work on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

February 10, 2020 — Kevin Sullivan - Traub Lieberman
Nationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable. In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

March 27, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In what the Court of Appeals describes as “the infamous government-created environmental disaster known at the Flint Water Crisis,” a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that some of the government personnel responsible for this disaster may be liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for monetary damages based on the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The case is Guertin, et al., v. State of Michigan, et al., decided on January 4, 2019. On April 25, 2014, the City of Flint, MI, facing a financial crisis, agreed to switch its drinking water supply from the water provided by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to untreated water available from the Flint River that would be treated in the waterworks owned and operated by the City. However, the City waterworks could not provide the needed treatment, which resulted in the corrosive Flint River water leaching lead out of the old Flint water pipes. Soon thereafter, a public health and environmental crisis enveloped Flint. Many lawsuits have been filed against many defendants, and many civil and criminal investigations have been opened. 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

Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

October 30, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I’m back after a welcome change of offices from a Regus location to a separate and more customer-friendly local shared office space location. I thought I’d jump back into posting with a series of construction contract-related posts, the first of which relates to indemnification clauses. An indemnification clause in a contract obligates one party (the Indemnitor) to take on liability (read pay for) any damages to another party (the Indemnitee) under certain circumstances. In a construction context, this type of arrangement can arise in a bonding context with a general indemnity obligation to the surety among other contexts outside of the four corners of any prime or subcontract. I will not be discussing those other contexts and will focus on the typical indemnity clause found in most if not all, construction contracts. These clauses most often state that the “downstream” party is to indemnify all of the upstream parties for any and all damages incurred by the indemnitees due to any action of the downstream party, its employees, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, etc. The clauses are often not limited in scope and generally include attorney fee provisions and generally require indemnity for breaches of contract by their terms. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES