Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

May 10, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Lawsuits filed for recovery due to the faulty design and installation of doors and windows by homeowners across the country were found to allege multiple occurrences. Pella Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. 53631 (C.D. Iowa March 31, 2017). The underlying lawsuits alleged that Pella Corporation's windows were defectively designed, manufactured, or installed, and allowed water intrusion to buildings that resulted in third-party property damage or personal injury. Pella sued Liberty Mutual for declaratory judgment and filed a motion for partial summary judgment to determine how many occurrences the underlying cases presented. Pella sought a determination that each of the 15 underlying cases presented one "occurrence" as the term was defined in the CGL policies issued by Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual argued that only three or four occurrences were presented, relying on common fact patterns. Pella argued that there were separate and distinct causes of different injuries and damage and thus, each underlying case constituted a separate occurrence. Liberty Mutual, on the other hand, highlighted language within the definition of "occurrence," which stated that an "occurrence" included "continuous or repeated exposure to the same general harmful conditions." The "substantially the same general harmful conditions" language dictated that the scope of "occurrence" be understood to be broad, such that various instances of damage-causing water intrusion in different times and places constituted "substantially the same general harmful conditions." 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

Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

July 01, 2019 — Vincent C. Zabielski & Julia Kalinina Belcher - Gravel2Gavel
Can an employer recover liquidated damages (LDs) from a contractor if the contract terminates before the contractor completes the work? Surprisingly, heretofore, English law provided no clear answer to this seemingly straightforward question, and inconsistent case law over the past century has left a trail of confusion. Given the widespread use of English law in international construction contracts, this uncertainty had gone on far too long. The good news is that drafters of construction contracts throughout the world can now have a well-deserved good night’s sleep courtesy of the English Court of Appeal’s March 2019 decision in Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 230. The Triple Point case concerned the delayed supply by Triple Point (the “Contractor”) of a new software system to employer PTT. The contract provided for payments upon achievement of milestones, however order forms incorporated into the contract set out the calendar dates on which fixed amounts were payable by PTT, resulting in an apparently contradictory requirements on when payment was due. Triple Point achieved completion (149 days late) of a portion of the work milestones, and were paid for that work. Triple Point then sought payment for the work which was not yet completed, relying on the calendar dates in the order forms rather than achievement of milestone payments. Things got progressively worse as PTT refused payment, Triple Point suspended the work for PTT’s failure to pay, PTT terminated the contract and then appointed a new contractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Vincent C. Zabielski, Pillsbury and Julia Kalinina Belcher, Pillsbury Mr. Zabielski may be contacted at vincent.zabielski@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Belcher may be contacted at julia.belcher@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Construction Industry Lost Jobs (No Surprise) but it Gained Some Too (Surprise)

October 12, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The announcement this week by major airlines and then by Disney that they will be laying off tens of thousands of workers is just the latest in what we already know: The coronavirus pandemic has adversely impacted workers around the world. And the construction industry is no exception, although its impacts have been uneven, and in some cases surprisingly good. According to a report by the Associated General Contractors of America, 39 states lost construction jobs between August 2019 and August 2020 while 31 states and the District of Columbia added construction jobs between July and August 2020. California saw the largest decline in construction jobs between August 2019 and August 2020, down 52,000 jobs or 5.8%, followed by by New York (-46,000 jobs/-11.3%), Texas (-39,300 jobs/-5.0%), Massachusetts (-20,200 jobs/-12.4%) and Illinois (-17,200/-7.5%). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Curtain Wall Suppliers Claim Rival Duplicated Unique System

February 28, 2022 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
Chicago-area construction material suppliers that hold patents for a curtain wall system used in high-rise construction projects are suing a rival, claiming it created a knock-off of the system based on a former employee’s knowledge and put the system to use on construction projects. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The ARC and The Covenants

May 30, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Mike Collignon. Mike is a co-founder of the Green Builder Coalition. The Green Builder® Coalition amplifies the voice of green builders and professionals to drive advocacy and education for more sustainable building practices. As we start to see signs of a housing recovery, slow as it may be, I feel the industry is in a great position. All the effort put in by so many to improve our energy codes, green building programs & rating systems will finally be able to bear fruit. We can start to build homes that are much more environmentally responsible. Sure, we can have a lengthy debate about implementation and adoption rates, but you’ve got to walk before you can run. Unfortunately, I can see that progress getting shackled by an unexpected impediment: the architectural review committee (ARC; sometimes called “architectural committee” or “architectural control authority”) and the covenants of a homeowners’ association. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

April 10, 2019 — Parker A. Lewton - Smith Currie
A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

New Opportunities for “Small” Construction Contractors as SBA Adjusts Its Size Standards Again Due to Unprecedented Inflation

September 11, 2023 — Hanna Lee Blake - ConsensusDocs
Thanks to the SBA’s November 17, 2022 adjustments to the size standards and monetary thresholds, a number of construction contractors will be able to retain their “small” status, and more contractors may benefit from federal assistance, programs, and contracts earmarked for “small” concerns. In the SBA’s view, small businesses should not lose their “small” status due solely to price level increases rather than from increases in business activity. It is anticipated that federal agencies may choose to set aside more construction contracts for competition among small businesses given the greater number of businesses that may be deemed “small” as a result of the SBA’s recent rule. In light of this, small construction contractors should consider whether it is prudent to register or update their existing profiles in the System for Award Management (SAM) to participate in federal contracting. The SBA’s Statutory Mandate The Small Business Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-163, as amended) authorized the SBA and justified the agency’s existence on the grounds that small businesses are essential to the maintenance of the free enterprise system. The congressional intent was to assist small businesses as a means to deter monopoly and oligarchy formation within all industries and the market failures caused by the elimination or reduction of competition in the marketplace. Congress delegated to the SBA the responsibility to establish size standards to ensure that only small businesses were provided SBA assistance. Since that time, the SBA has analyzed various economic factors, such as each industry’s overall competitiveness and the competitiveness of firms within each industry, to set its size standards. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hanna Lee Blake, Watt Tieder
Ms. Blake may be contacted at hblake@watttieder.com

Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

December 11, 2013 — Heather Anderson — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
In the last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that a settlement payment from an excess insurance carrier to another primary insurance carrier precluded a finding of vertical exhaustion sufficient to trigger the primary carrier’s duty to indemnify. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 2012 WL 6004087 (D. Colo. 2012). The Scottsdale case arose out of the construction of a 507-unit apartment complex in Arapahoe County, Colorado in which a number of defects became apparent during construction. As a result, the owner of the project sued the general contractor and/or the construction manager, seeking to recover more than $22 million for various construction deficiencies. Id. at *1. The general contractor was insured under policies issued by several carriers. Scottsdale Insurance Co. (“Scottsdale”) and National Union Fire Ins. Co. (“National Union) provided umbrella coverage, and CNA and American Zurich Ins. Co. (“Zurich”) provided primary insurance under commercial general liability policies. About five years later, the construction defect case settled for $8.5 million dollars. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson
Heather Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES