Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

July 30, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a complaint alleging bad faith for the insurer's failure to adequately investigate the claim. Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 564 (Cal. Ct. App. June 27, 2014). The insured was injured in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The insured sought policy limits of $250,000 from the insurer. In response, the insurer demanded arbitration. The arbitrator awarded $164,120.91. The insured sued, alleging the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged the insured was not at fault. The police report found that the uninsured motorist was the sole cause of the accident. The insured provided the police report and medical records to the insurer. When the insured demanded the $250,000 policy limits, the insurer did not respond. 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

Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

May 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A differing site condition claim will almost universally result in both a cost and time impact. There will be additional, unanticipated costs incurred. And there will likely be a delay requiring additional time to perform. A Type I differing site condition claim is when the contractor encounters conditions at the site different than those indicated in the contract documents. That seems easy enough to prove, right. Nope. And, I mean nope! If you don’t believe me, consider the recent decision in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 885 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2018). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???

September 01, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Does a CGL insurer have a duty to defend its insured-contractor during Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects pre-suit process? This answer is currently undecided and will be up to the Florida Supreme Court to decide. (It is on appeal stemming from a federal district court saying that an insurer does not have a duty to defend its insured-contractor in the 558 process based on the definition of the word “suit” in the CGL policy.) Why is this an important issue? The 558 pre-suit notice of construction defects process is designed to facilitate an avenue for construction defect lawsuits to get resolved without having to file a lawsuit or, at least, have issues narrowed before a lawsuit needs to be filed. (Check here for a summary of the 558 process.) It requires pre-suit notifications so that implicated parties can become aware of the defects and have an opportunity to inspect the defects / damage, test the defects / damage, and respond to the notice of construction defects; it provides an avenue for beneficial pre-suit discovery. Through participating in the 558 process, the contractor and/or design professional (and those downstream from them) can: (i) offer to remedy the defect, (ii) settle the defect, whether through money or a combination of money and repairs, (iii) dispute the defect, or (iv) advise that available insurance proceeds will be determined by its liability insurer. See Fla. Stat. s. 558.004. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Wharf Holdings to Sell Entire Sino-Ocean Stake for $284 Million

December 10, 2015 — Bloomberg News – Bloomberg
Wharf Holdings Ltd., a Hong Kong-based real-estate developer, said it has agreed to sell its entire stake in Sino-Ocean Land Holdings Ltd. for HK$2.2 billion ($284 million) to an undisclosed buyer, three days after Anbang Insurance Group Co. purchased about a fifth of the Chinese builder’s shares. Wharf will sell 445 million shares, or 5.93 percent of Sino-Ocean Land’s stake, for HK$5 each, the company said in a statement on its website on Thursday. It expects to complete the transaction next week. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

November 30, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Scope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The fourth and final part in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses that can put a damper on your holidays.

Provision: Warranty Provisions

Typical Provision: “Subcontractor warrants to Contractor that all materials and equipment furnished shall be new unless otherwise specified and that all Work performed shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, of good quality and free from defects, and in conformance with industry standards, manufacturer’s recommendations and the Contract Documents. All work not conforming to these requirements, including substitutions not properly approved, shall be considered defective. Subcontractor agrees to promptly make good any and all defects due to faulty workmanship, materials and/or equipment which may appear within the Contract Documents, and if no such period is stipulated in the Contract, then for a period of one year from the date of acceptance by the Owner. Nothing herein shall shorten or limit any applicable periods of limitations including, but not limited to, those set forth in Civil Code, Part 2, Title 2, Chapter 3.”
What it Means: Warranty periods are subject to the agreement of the parties. However, warranties are different than limitations periods, such as California’s 4 year statute of repose for patent defects and 10 year statute of repose for latent defects (note: a statute of repose is different than a statute of limitation. A statute of repose sets a deadline based on an event. So, for example, under the 10 year statute of repose for latent defects a claimant must bring a latent defect claim within 10 years following substantial completion even if the latent defect wasn’t discovered until 10 years and 1 month following substantial completion. A statute of limitation, in contrast, sets a deadline based on the occurrence of an injury or damage. So, for example, California has a 2 year statute of limitation for personal injuries, which sets a deadline of 2 years from the date of injury to bring a personal injury claim). Warranty periods are also different from limitations periods because most warranties require work to be corrected at no cost, and because many contracts include attorney’s fee provisions, breach of a warranty can give rise to claim for attorney’s fees as well.
What You Can Do: Lower-tiered parties should examine warranty provisions to see if they are reasonable, and if not reasonable, should seek to either eliminate or limit those provisions, such as by reducing the warranty period or providing different warranty periods for different components of work, etc.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Newark Trial Team Secures Affirmance of ‘No Cause’ Verdict for Nationwide Housing Manager & Developer

January 07, 2025 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Newark, N.J. (December 30, 2024) - Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin Hackett recently obtained a ruling by a New Jersey Appellate Division panel affirming a unanimous "no cause" defense verdict obtained on behalf of a nationwide housing developer and manager. In this case, the plaintiff and her two minor children brought suit against the firm's client. They appealed a unanimous no-cause jury verdict rendered in May 2023 that found the defendants not liable for mold exposure in their apartment. The plaintiffs argued that several trial errors, including improper jury instructions, a confusing verdict sheet, and prejudicial remarks by defense counsel led to an unjust result. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in handling the case. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Microsoft Said to Weigh Multibillion-Dollar Headquarters Revamp

September 17, 2015 — Dina Bass & Hui-Yong Yu - Bloomberg
Microsoft Corp. is considering a multibillion-dollar revamp of its headquarters campus in suburban Seattle, seeking to foster more collaboration among employees and attract young engineers, according to people with knowledge of the plans. The software giant has hired architecture firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP as part of the effort at its Redmond, Washington, offices, said the people, who asked not to be named because the plans aren’t public. Skidmore Owings designed Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building, and is helping Microsoft with a makeover of its much smaller campus in Mountain View, California. Microsoft hasn’t yet decided whether to move forward with the Redmond overhaul, said one of the people familiar with the matter. Reprinted courtesy of Dina Bass, Bloomberg and Hui-Yong Yu, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

OSHA Updates: New Submission Requirements for Injury and Illness Records

October 02, 2023 — Ashley Meredith Strittmatter & Chelsea N. Hayes - Construction Executive
In a revival of an OSHA recordkeeping rule originally implemented under the Obama administration in 2016 and "rolled back" by the Trump administration in 2019, OSHA issued a final rule on July 21, 2023, requiring certain establishments in high-hazard industries to submit additional injury and illness data electronically to OSHA. The Final Rule is found at 29 CFR 1904 and goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2024. What does this mean? On and after Jan. 1, 2024, OSHA will require employers with 100 or more workers in certain high-hazard industries to provide annual information from their Forms 300 and 301, in addition to the already-required electronic submission of Form 300A. Form 300 is the Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, including the specific injuries or illnesses and the employee names, while Form 301 is the corresponding Injury and Illness Incident Report, which includes additional details on each item listed on the 300 Log. Form300A is the corresponding Annual Summary showing the injury and illness totals for the year, including the number of cases, number of lost workdays, the injury and illness types, the average number of employees and the total hours employees worked. This Form 300A Annual Summary must be routinely submitted by employers with more than 250 employees on or before March 2 of each year for the prior year. Reprinted courtesy of Ashley Meredith Strittmatter and Chelsea N. Hayes, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Ms. Strittmatter may be contacted at astrittmatter@bakerdonelson.com Ms. Hayes may be contacted at cnhayes@bakerdonelson.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES