Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry

March 25, 2024 — Oliver Craig - Construction Executive
Reflecting on the dynamics of the 2023 construction and surety industries, it is evident that opportunities and challenges have emerged for contractors that will shape the landscape for the year ahead. Contractors can not only capitalize on these trends but protect the successful companies they have already built. PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES There has been a notable increase in public works opportunities, driven by increased government spending and the aging infrastructure in the United States. This trend is expected to continue in 2024 and beyond, with a notable portion of work coming in transportation- and public-utility-related infrastructure. Due to increased spending, many contractors are reporting historically high backlogs—and that often includes the largest project their company has contracted in their history. While increased spending presents more opportunity, it’s critical contractors be even more diligent about new opportunities, giving additional consideration to the following: Job Selection: New geographies, scope, project owners and/or subcontractor relationships commonly come with a learning curve. With the current state of the market, it’s not the ideal time to be learning costly lessons. Contractors should focus on having a proactive go/no-go strategy when reviewing potential projects to identify risks early and plan accordingly. Reprinted courtesy of Oliver Craig, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Eleventh Circuit’s Noteworthy Discussion on Bad Faith Insurance Claims

November 01, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in Pelaez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 2021 WL 4258821 (11th Cir. 2021) is a non-construction case that discusses the standard for pursuing a bad faith claim against an insurer. This case dealt with an automobile accident. While the facts of the case are interesting and will be discussed, the takeaway is the Eleventh Circuit’s noteworthy discussion on the standard for bad faith claims and how they should be evaluated. This discussion is included below–with citations–because while the term “bad faith” is oftentimes thrown around when it comes to insurance carriers, there is indeed an evaluative standard that is applied to determine whether an insurance carrier acted in bad faith. In Pelaez, a high school student driving a car crashed with a motorcycle. The motorcycle driver was seriously injured and airlifted to the hospital. The accident was reported to the automobile liability insurer of the driver of the car. The insurer through its investigation initially believed the motorcycle driver was contributory negligent. Eleven days after the crash, after learning additional information, the insurer tendered its bodily injury policy limits of $50,00 to the motorcycle driver even though it never received a settlement demand. The insurer sent a tender package to the motorcycle driver’s lawyer that included a $50,000 check for the bodily injury claim and a proposed release. The accompanying letter told the attorney to contact the insurer with any questions about the release and to edit the proposed release with suggested changes. The insurer also wanted to inspect the motorcycle in furtherance of adjusting the property damage claim which also had a policy limit of $50,000. A location of where the motorcycle could be inspected was never provided. 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

Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.

First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”

The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”

Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”

The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”

Read the court’s decision…

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

The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

December 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Wouldn’t it be nice to know ahead of time what an OSHA inspector will be looking for when he comes to your work site? Well, I know the secret. And, it’s not really a secret. Just look at OSHA’s top ten citation standards and it becomes quite clear. In 2015, OSHA’s top ten most frequently cited violations are:

1. Fall protection (C) 2. Hazard communication 3. Scaffolding (C)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

July 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
This year, the California State Fair is displaying “four modern, environmentally friendly cabins” as “part of the ‘revamp the camps’ mission by the Forward Parks Commission, California State Parks and 12 architecture graduate students at Cal Poly Pomona,” according to the Sacramento Bee. The commission’s purpose is “to find solutions for the financial, cultural and population changes affecting state parks” including “drawing millennials and urban residents who live far from traditional state parks.” Guidelines stated that the cabins “had to be portable, accessible to the physically disabled and made from sustainable materials.” Furthermore the cabins had to be under $15,000 each, have no running water or electricity, and “[y]et the design had to appeal to a younger market.” “After a review of the surveys and recommendations from the Parks Forward Commission, the hope is to place the prototypes in state parks for public use,” the Sacramento Bee reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Wildfire Threats Make Utilities Uninsurable in US West

August 12, 2024 — Mark Chediak - Bloomberg
Trinity Public Utilities District’s power lines snake through the lower reaches of the Cascade Range, a rugged, remote and densely forested terrain in Northern California that has some of the highest wildfire risk in the country. But for several years, the company has been without insurance to protect it from such a threat. Trinity’s equipment was blamed for causing a 2017 wildfire that destroyed 72 homes and three years later its insurer, a California public agency called the Special District Risk Management Authority, told the utility that it would no longer cover it for fires started by its electrical lines. Trinity could find no other takers. The utility’s exposure comes as wildfires are already flaring up across the US West in what could be a dangerous and prolonged fire season. “If a fire were to start now that involved one of our power lines, it would likely bankrupt the utility,” said Paul Hauser, general manager of the local government-owned utility that serves about 13,000 rural customers in Trinity County, 200 miles (322 kilometers) north of Sacramento. That’s because without insurance, a lawsuit could put the utility on the hook to pay for damages to private homes and businesses, which could easily top the utility’s annual revenue of about $16 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg

How a Robot-Built Habitat on Mars Could Change Construction on Earth

October 14, 2019 — Drew Turney - Engineering News-Record
According to a 2018 report by the International Energy Agency and UN Environment, the global construction industry is responsible for 39% of energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions. That is a huge, scary number—but one that comes with an equally large opportunity to mitigate climate change. The 2015 Paris climate talks revealed that by using existing technology, construction could cut global carbon emissions by up to a third. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Drew Turney, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Colorado Defective Construction is Not Considered "Property Damage"

September 12, 2022 — Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the July 5, 2022, case of Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Houston Casualty Co., the United States District Court for Colorado addressed the issue of whether damage to defectively installed balconies is considered “property damage” under Colorado law, requiring payment by a commercial general liability policy. Facts of the Case The case stems from a construction project where a subcontractor improperly installed balconies on an apartment complex. The owner of the project secured commercial general liability (CGL) coverage through an OCIP insured by Houston Casualty Company (HHC). The OCIP insured the general contractor and subcontractors. The general contractor also purchased a subcontractor default insurance policy insured by Indian Harbor. All parties agreed that the subcontractor improperly installed portions of various balconies, including flashing, water-proof sealing, and water-resistant barriers, among other defects with the installation process. The parties also agreed that other portions of the balconies were properly installed. However, in order to repair the defects in the installations, every bit of each balcony had to be torn off and re-constructed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES