Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

September 29, 2021 — Krsto Mijanovic, Jeffrey C. Schmid & John M. Wilkerson - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
In Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021 WL 3671594) (“Gonzalez”), the Supreme Court of California held that a landowner generally owes no duty to an independent contractor or its workers to remedy or adopt other measures to protect them against known hazards on the premises. The Court applied the Privette doctrine which establishes a presumption that a landowner generally delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to its independent contractor. (See generally Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590.) As such, the independent contractor is responsible for ensuring that the work can be performed safely despite a known hazard on the worksite, even where the contractor and its workers are unable to take any reasonable safety precautions to avoid or protect themselves from the known hazard. In Gonzalez, the landowner, Mathis, had hired an independent contractor, Gonzalez, to clean a skylight on his roof. To access the skylight, Gonzalez needed to utilize a narrow path between the edge of the roof and a parapet wall. While walking along this path, Gonzalez slipped and fell to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. Gonzalez alleged this accident was caused by several dangerous conditions on the roof, including a slippery surface, a lack of tie-off points to attach a safety harness, and a lack of a guardrail. Gonzalez was aware of all of these hazards prior to the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Jeffrey C. Schmid, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and John M. Wilkerson, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Schmid may be contacted at jschmid@hbblaw.com Mr. Wilkerson may be contacted at jwilkerson@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

September 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to attorney Matthew J. Mussalli, writing in Texas Lawyer, “In Jaster v. Comet II Construction on July 3, the Texas Supreme Court ruled how to construe the term ‘plaintiff’ in the context of claims against design professionals and under what circumstances a Certificate of Merit (COM) is required.” Mussalli explained that “the court narrowly construed the relevant statute contained in Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code and held that the plaintiff is just that—the plaintiff; not a defendant/third-party plaintiff nor a cross-claimant. Accordingly, builders, contractors and others who find themselves in the position of defending breach of contract, negligence or other claims and who seek to implead design professionals, need not file a COM with their third-party petitions or cross-claims against architects, engineers or other design professionals.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

AIA Releases State-Specific Waiver and Release Forms

September 05, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has released a new series of state-specific waiver and release forms including forms for California. The new California-specific forms are:

G901CA-2022 – California Conditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment
G902CA-2022 – California Unconditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment
G903CA-2022 – California Conditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment
G904CA-2022 – California Unconditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment

California is one of twelve states – including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Texas, Utah and Wyoming – which regulate waiver and release forms on construction projects. California’s waiver and release statute, which is codified at Civil Code section 8120 et seq., sets forth specific language which should be used in waivers and releases. While the exact language set forth under California’s waiver and release statutes does not need to be used, the statute provides that the language must be “in substantially” the same form, and most people follow the statutory language exactly. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.

October 24, 2021 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
In Serpanok Construction, Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC, Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals decided an issue of first impression in Washington—whether a guarantor of a partially secured debt remains liable until the last dollar of the entire debt is paid off. After examining cases from other jurisdictions, the court held that that a guarantor is liable until the underlying debt is paid in full unless the agreement contains an express pay down provision. A pay down provision sets forth the guarantor’s right to reduce its obligation to the extent of any payment toward the debt, and it establishes that the guaranty applies only until an amount equivalent to the guaranteed amount is paid off. The Serpanok decision addressed several other issues, but the published portion of this part-published case focused on whether an entity involved in a real estate development, Point Ruston LLC, was discharged from its guaranty obligation following a foreclosure sale where the proceeds did not cover the entire debt owed to a subcontractor. Point Ruston LLC, Point Ruston Phase II LLC (“Phase II”), and Century Condominiums (“Century”) were affiliated entities (collectively “Point Ruston parties”) that constructed retail and residential structures on a site in Point Ruston. Serpanok Construction Inc. (“Serpanok”) entered into subcontract agreements with Phase II and Century to perform concrete and steel work on a parking garage and movie theater for the project. Point Ruston LLC was not a party to either subcontract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation on Condition of Home is Not an Occurrence Causing Property Damage

December 17, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that even if the insured's negligent misrepresentations constituted an accident, the disclosures did not cause physical damage to the property. Wood v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180624 (D. S.C. Sept. 12, 2024). The insured, Clinton Wood, purchased a townhome in January 2014. After the purchase, Wood experienced leaks and significant water intrusion, as did other townhome owners in the same development. Wood and the other owners retained an engineer to evaluate the cause of the water damage. The engineer determined that the water intrusion was caused by defects in the design and construction of the residence. The engineer told Wood that the proposed repairs would not adequately address and resolve the water intrusion and leaks, and that the problems would continue even if repairs were made. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Times Square Alteration Opened Up a Can of Worms

January 26, 2017 — Nadine M. Post – Engineering News-Record
Compared with some of its Manhattan neighbors, a high-rise on the corner of Seventh Avenue and West 47th Street looks standard. Like many buildings in Times Square, the 41-story retail-entertainment-hotel development, nearly topped out, has a tower springing from a boxy base that will sport a flashy billboard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The owner of a regional water treatment plant in California has filed a lawsuit against the where they operate. Construction defects lead to cost overruns at the Modesto Irrigation District’s water treatment plant. Now the question is whether MID or Modesto will be paying for the expenses. Both parties sued Black & Veatch and others, receiving $14.9 million. But the problems have lead to the cost of the water treatment plant expansion ballooning to $107.5 million, a big jump over the planned $62.9 million. Also, instead of being completed in 2009, the completion date has been pushed to 2015. Modesto originally agreed to pay for the expansion, which will increase plant’s ability to provide drinking water to 66 million gallons per day with the agreement that MID would provide the water at the cost of producing it. But now the cost to Modesto of those additional 36 million gallons a day is an additional $44.6 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Order for Appraisal Affirmed After Insureds Comply with Post-Loss Obligations

April 15, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeal affirmed an order compelling an appraisal because the insureds complied with their post-loss obligations under the policy. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Cardelles, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2559 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2015). The insureds suffered damage to their home after Hurricane Katrina on August 25, 2005, and again after Hurricane Wilma on October 24, 2005. After each hurricane, State Farm was notified. With the assistance of their public adjuster, the insureds submitted sworn proofs of loss for damages caused by each hurricane. After the deductible, State Farm paid $19,000 for the Hurricane Katrina claim and $13,000 for the Hurricane Wilma claim. The insureds repaired their roof and made minor repairs to their home with the State Farm payment, but claimed the payment was insufficient to fully repair the damage from the two hurricanes. Four years later, the insureds hired a second public adjuster, who submitted a supplemental claim to State Farm for $127,000 in damages. State Farm requested documents and an updated sworn proof of loss. The insureds did not submit any additional documents because they had not made any additional repairs without further payment from State Farm. The insureds did, however, allow State Farm to make a further inspection of the damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES