SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

“Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”



Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.



Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”



One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”



As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”



Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.



Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.



The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

September 28, 2017 — Philip M. Brown-Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion! Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com

---

Design-Assist Collaboration/Follow-up Post

March 16, 2020 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Shortly after posting the blog article “Design-Assist an Ambiguous Term Causing Conflict in the Construction Industry,” I received an email from Brian Perlberg, the Executive Director and Senior Counsel for ConsensusDocs. He brought two ConsensusDocs forms to my attention: ConsensusDocs 541 Design Assist Addendum and ConsensusDocs 300 Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA). In the ConsensusDocs model of “design-assist,” the lead design professional retains design responsibility but benefits from input and consultation from the construction team during design development. By contrast, in the design-build project delivery method, the constructor assumes design responsibility and liability for either the entire project design (design-build) or just a component of the design (delegated design). The ConsensusDocs 541 document goal is to provide “accurate information concerning program, quality, cost, constructability and schedule from all parties.” It provides a range of standard and optimal services during design development that essentially shifts the curve of selecting the construction manager (CM) and most importantly, special trade contractors, to much earlier in the process, perhaps as soon as the owner’s program is developed. This opens a world of possibilities for the design and construction team to collaborate early and often. The design professional, however, does not abdicate its design responsibility or authority in this process. The ultimate goal is to end the all-too-common wasteful cycle of design and redesign that is common in construction projects.[1] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

---

A Classic Blunder: Practical Advice for Avoiding Two-Front Wars

August 23, 2021 — William Underwood - ConsensusDocs
“Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – the most famous of which is ‘never get involved in a land war in Asia’ – but only slightly less well-known is this: ‘Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.’”[1] Vizzini forgot to include “never fight a two-front war with your owner and a subcontractor” on his list of classic blunders, but it certainly belongs there. This article examines practical tips and tricks for general contractors to avoid the classic blunder of a two-front war, including recommended contract provisions and sound project documentation practices. Admittedly, general contractors face a wide array of obligations on a project. And perhaps one of the most delicate balancing acts is managing relationships with the owner and your subcontractors. But far too often general contractors find themselves in the difficult position of fighting a two-front war against one (or more) of their subcontractors and the project owner. But this does not always have to be the case—there are ways for general contractors to reduce the risk of finding themselves in a two-front war. And every project does not have to devolve in a circular firing squad with you in the middle. That said, this article comes with the caveat that a general contractor cannot avoid a two-front war in every instance, nor does this article examine every imaginable way to reduce the risk of a two-front war (see e.g. https://www.consensusdocs.org/pass-through-subcontractor-claims-liquidating-agreements-and-avoiding-a-two-front-war/). But this article will provide an overview of several key tools that can be used to minimize the risk of falling into a classic blunder. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Underwood, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

---

Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries

July 30, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (No. B252566, filed June 18, 2015), the Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of a brake grinding machine. The Court cited an exception to the general rule that manufacturers may not be held liable, under a strict products liability theory, where the plaintiff’s injuries arise from other products that are used in conjunction with the defendant’s product. Plaintiff and appellant, Michael Sherman, was an automobile mechanic from 1962 to 1977. Mr. Sherman alleged that during this period he used an arcing machine, which abraded brake linings by means of sand paper moving at high speeds. Sherman alleged the machine released asbestos dust, which he then brought home, exposing his wife Debra Sherman to asbestos. Ms. Sherman developed mesothelioma and passed away from exposure to the asbestos dust carried home by her husband. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Bad Faith in the First Party Insurance Context

December 15, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a previous article I discussed bad faith when it comes to an insurance claim. Recently, in Barton v. Capitol Preferred Insurance Co., Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2736b (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), the court discussed bad faith in the first-party insurance context (i.e., a property / homeowners insurance policy). In this case, homeowners, as the insured, sued their homeowners insurance carrier for sinkhole coverage. The homeowner filed a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (also known as a Civil Remedy Notice) against their insurer with the Florida Department of Insurance in accordance with Florida Statute s. 624.155. This Civil Remedy Notice is a prerequisite to initiating such a bad faith claim; the notice specifies the statutory violations committed by the insurer and gives the insurer 60 days to cure the violation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

---

Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Writing on the Sheppard Mullin web site, Scott Hennigh looks at the implications of the 2012 California case Axis Surplus Insurance. A condominium complex was covered by two insurance policies, covering different time periods. During a construction defect claim, one insurer argued that the claim was not covered. The other insurer settled and sued that both needed to contribute to the settlement. The court held that when multiple insurers are in conflict, the burden to prove that coverage does not exist lies solely on the party claiming it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Congratulations to Walnut Creek Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling for Winning a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Their Client, a Regional Grocery Store!

July 05, 2023 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling recently won their Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of a prominent Bay Area Grocery Store, and long-time client of the firm. BWB&O’s Client is a regional Grocery Store with locations throughout California and Nevada. The Client was sued in an action pertaining to a claimed dangerous condition of public property, resulting in a vehicle versus pedestrian collision in an intersection, adjacent to a Northern California store of BWB&O’s Client. The Plaintiff asserted our Client allowed the use of the store’s parking lot as a pickup and drop-off location by agricultural laborers, resulting in increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic, which the surrounding streets were not capable of accommodating thereby creating an allegedly dangerous condition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---