Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

General Contractor Cited for Safety Violations after Worker Fatality

September 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The general contractor of Washington’s SR 520 Floating Bridge Project was cited by the Washington Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) “for serious safety violations following the death of worker Joe Arrants in March.” According to EHS Today, “Arrants was killed when he fell approximately 60 feet to the dock below.” EHS Today reported that during the investigation, L&I found that the fall protection systems were not used “in accordance with fall protection standards and the manufacturer’s recommendation during forming and stripping operations.” Furthermore, there was no “lifesaving skiff immediately available,” or “a ring buoy with at least 90 feet of line, which would make rescue difficult if a worker fell into the water,” and the contractor did not ensure that the hand tools and equipment were in good, working condition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

“Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay

August 20, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On May 28, 2019, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division examined the phrase “based on” in an assault-and-battery exclusion, finding that the phrase means “to make, form, or serve as the foundation of any claim, demand or suit.” C.M.S. Investment Ventures, Inc. v. American European Insurance Company, No. A-2056-17T3, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1215, at *8-9 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 28, 2019) (CMS). The CMS case is also notable because the Appellate Division held that a 20-month delay in disclaiming coverage was unreasonable and therefore warranted estoppel. In CMS, the insured was allegedly warned by its tenant about a faulty ground-floor window that failed to lock properly. Afterward, an intruder broke into the tenant’s apartment and sexually assaulted the tenant, who sued the insured on a premises liability claim. Before she filed suit, the tenant sought payment from the insured’s CGL insurer directly. The insurer denied coverage based on the assault-and-battery exclusion and closed the file, but never informed the insured. Later, the tenant sued the insured, which sought a defense and indemnity from its insurer, which again denied coverage based on the exclusion. The insured then sought a declaration of coverage on grounds that the exclusion was ambiguous, and the insurer “was estopped from denying coverage, because it waited [20] months to inform CMS of its coverage decision.” The trial court ruled in the insured’s favor which led to the appeal in CMS. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?

August 24, 2017 — Laura Parsons-CDJ STAFF
An appellate court has ruled that the sponsor and not the condo board is responsible for repairing construction defects at 50 Madison Avenue, a multi-story apartment building in New York City across from Madison Square Park, Habitat reported. Plaintiff’s Simon and Ludmilla Lorne have brought upon three lawsuits in a legal battle lasting a decade. The first came in 2007, two years after the Lorne’s purchased their $3 million seventh-floor apartment. At that time, the sponsor offered to repair the concrete slab under the hardwood floors that had not been properly leveled. However, the Lorne’s and the condo board disagreed about who and how the repairs would be accomplished. The second lawsuit wherein the court ruled that repairing the construction defects was the responsibility of the sponsor occurred in 2009. However, the Lorne’s sued the board yet again in 2015, citing failure to maintain and repair the building. Since the 2015 suit was based on the same allegations as the 2007 suit, it was dismissed by the judge. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential Damages

February 27, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews Kurth
In a huge win for policyholders, a New York appellate court, in D.K. Property, Inc. v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., held that an insured need not provide a detailed factual description or explanation for why consequential damages are recoverable at the pleading stage. Rather, an insured’s complaint must only (i) specify the types of consequential damages claimed; and (ii) allege that those damages reasonably were contemplated by the parties prior to contracting. Here, D.K. Property’s building was damaged as a result of construction on an adjoining building, and it timely filed a claim with National Union under a policy that covers “direct physical loss or damage to” the building. National Union neither paid the claim nor disclaimed coverage. Instead, according to D.K. Property, National Union made unreasonable and increasingly burdensome information demands over a three-year period, which it alleges was a “tactic” to make pursuing the claim so expensive that D.K. Property would abandon the claim. As a result of the delay, D.K. Property alleges the structural damage to its building has worsened. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

2019 Legislative Session

June 03, 2019 — Steve Heisdorffer – Colorado Construction Litigation
Two bills under consideration as the end of the session nears contain significant changes to Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”). The bills broaden remedies, make more conduct a breach of the CCPA, and include purely private transactions in the type of conduct that falls within the scope of the CCPA. The bills are House Bill 19-1289 (“House Bill”) and Senate Bill 19-237 (“Senate Bill”). As of April 29, 2019, the House Bill has passed the House. The Senate Bill has not progressed past introduction. It is unclear if both houses of the legislature will have an opportunity to vote on either or both bills before the session ends. The House Bill makes a person liable for CCPA violations based on conduct engaged in “recklessly,” not just knowing conduct. No definition of the term “recklessly” is provided in the House Bill, but Colorado’s attorney general testified “recklessly” “means a company or person acted with reckless disregard for the truth.” (Page 2). No explanation was given of what the word “reckless” in the definition of “recklessly” meant in this context. Another provision of the House Bill adds a “catch all” prohibition that labels as a deceptive trade practice knowingly or recklessly engaging in any unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, deliberately misleading, false or fraudulent act or practice. There is no indication how a person could “recklessly” engage in “deliberately misleading” acts or practices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at heisdorffer@hhmrlaw.com

Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit

September 17, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are cases where I honestly do no fully understand the insurer’s position because it cannot have its cake and eat it too. The recent opinion in Houston Specialty Insurance Company v. Vaughn, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1828a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) is one of those cases because on one hand it tried hard to disclaim coverage and on the other hand tried to intervene in the underlying suit where it was not a named party. This case dealt with a personal injury dispute where a laborer for a pressure washing company fell off of a roof and became a paraplegic. The injured person sued the pressure washing company and its representatives. The company and representatives tendered the case to its general liability insurer and the insurer–although it provided a defense under a reservation of rights—filed a separate action for declaratory relief based on an exclusion in the general liability policy that excluded coverage for the pressure washing company’s employees (because the general liability policy is not a workers compensation policy). This is known as the employer’s liability exclusion that excludes coverage for bodily injury to an employee. The insurer’s declaratory relief action sought a declaration that there was no coverage because the injured laborer was an employee of the pressure washing company. The pressure washing company claimed he was an independent contractor, in which the policy did provide limited coverage pursuant to an endorsement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Unpredictable Opinion Regarding Construction Lien (Reinstatement??)

January 17, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here comes the discussion of an appeal I was intimately involved in dealing with a construction lien. See Suntech Plumbing and Mechanical Corp. v. Bella Isla, LLC, 2022 WL 14672765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). Unfortunately, it was a losing result on my end but not a losing result to the issue at-hand. You should ask what in the world does this mean. I will tell you. Here is the fact pattern. A subcontractor files a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit against an owner for unpaid contract balance. In the same lawsuit, the subcontractor sues the general contractor for breach of contract and unjust enrichment associated with an approximate three-year delay on a construction project. The project was scheduled to be completed in 2019. It was not. The project was pushed into COVID and into 2022. (The subcontractor did not sue the general contractor for amounts subject to the lien foreclosure claim.) The general contractor, assuming the defense of the owner, moved to stay the lawsuit pending the outcome of arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the subcontract. The subcontractor did not dispute the arbitration provision, but argued that arbitration provision should not extend to the owner that was (a) not bound by the subcontract, (b) would not be a party to the arbitration, and (c) the amounts pled against the general contractor did not include the amounts subject of the lien foreclosure lawsuit. At a minimum, the lawsuit should be stayed, not dismissed. Nevertheless, the trial court dismissed the entire lawsuit in an order that states that it is a final order with language that the lien may be “reinstated” after the outcome of the arbitration (that the owner is not a party to). 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

Hirer Not Liable Under Privette Doctrine Where Hirer Had Knowledge of Condition, but not that Condition Posed a Concealed Hazard

December 11, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Privette doctrine, so-called because of a case of the same name, Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 698 (1993), provides a rebuttable presumption that a hirer is not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of hired parties. In other words, if a property owner hires a contractor, and one of the contractor’s employees gets injured while working on the property, there is a rebuttable presumption that the property owner is not liable for the employee’s injuries, the rationale being that because the contractor is required to carry workers’ compensation insurance the contractor is in the better position to absorb losses incurred a workplace injury. There are, however, two widely recognized exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, is the Hooker exception, again named after a case of the same name, Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal.th 198 (2002), which provides that a hirer is liable for injuries to a hired parties’ employees, if the hirer retained control over the work being performed, negligently exercised that control, and the negative exercise of that control contributed to the employee’s injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES