Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

December 19, 2018 — Sarah McBride & Edvard Pettersson - Bloomberg
Elon Musk’s futuristic tunneling company, Boring Co., is no longer embroiled in a lawsuit with the residents of West Los Angeles. A May lawsuit aimed at stopping the Boring Co.’s proposed tunnel under Sepulveda Boulevard has been settled, according to a notice filed at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Neighbors in the Brentwood and Sunset Boulevard areas, near the proposed tunnel, had sued the City of Los Angeles over the Boring Co.’s plans to build a test tunnel without going through an environmental review process, as recommended in April by the city’s public works committee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride & Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg

Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

June 06, 2018 — Jonathan Barnes - Engineering News-Record
The state of Pennsylvania continues to try to recover funds from professional firms involved in the city of Harrisburg’s disastrous incinerator project in the early 2000’s and has named, Buchart Horn, Inc., an engineering, architecture and planning firm based in York, Pa. as a defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Barnes, ENR
ENR staff may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Replacement of Gym Floor Due to Sloppy Paint Job is Not Resulting Loss

January 02, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment finding damage to the gym floor due to a poor paint job was not a resulting loss. Bob Robinson Commercial Flooring, Inc. v. RLI Ins,. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196105 (D. Ark. Nov. 1, 2023). Bob Robinson Commercial Flooring (BRCF) submitted a bid to the general contractor, Nabholz Construction Corporation, to install a vinyl athletic floor and striping at a middle school. The job also included the painting of a "Wildcat" logo the main gym floor. Therefore, BRCF's job was to install floors with proper painting and striping. Robert Liles and Robert Lines Parking Lot Services was the subcontractor hired to do the painting and striping. BRCF did not supervise or inspect Liles' work while it was ongoing. Nabholz informed BRCF that there were problems with the floor painting, including crooked lines, incorrect markings, misplacement of the three point lines for the basketball surface, drips, smudges, etc. The gym floor was eventually rejected due to the nature of the vinyl flooring, once primer and paint were applied, the paint could not be removed and repainted. BRCF had to hire a new subcontractor to remove the flooring, install new flooring and then paint new lines. The cost for removal and replacement was $134,188.95. 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

Best Lawyers Recognizes Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Honors Four Partners as ‘Lawyers of the Year’

September 19, 2022 — Lewis Brisbois
(August 18, 2022) - Best Lawyers has selected 149 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 46 offices for inclusion in its list of 2023 Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized four Lewis Brisbois partners on its "Lawyers of the Year" list: Chairman & Founding Partner Robert F. Lewis (Insurance Law); Portland Managing Partner Eric J. Neiman (Litigation - Health Care); Akron Managing Partner David Kern (Tax Law); and Roanoke Partner Paul C. Kuhnel (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants). Please join us in congratulating these four partners and the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition.

Nashville Partner Tara Aaron-Stelluto: Copyright Law

Pittsburgh Partner Andrew F. Adomitis: Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants

Fort Lauderdale Partner Vincent F. Alexander: Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law

Miami Partner Seth Alhadeff: Litigation - Insurance

Seattle Partner Randy J. Aliment: Commercial Litigation

Phoenix Partner Dina Anagnopoulos: Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants

Madison County Partner Charles S. Anderson: Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants

Reno Managing Partner Jack G. Angaran: Insurance Law, Litigation – Construction, Litigation - Real Estate

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

Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

December 20, 2012 — TRED EYERLY, INSURANCE LAW HAWAII
In Pioneer Tower Owners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12 NY3d 302 (2009), the New York Court of Appeals found an "earth movement" exclusion was ambiguous when applied to an excavation. The court now considered whether a similar exclusion, expressly made applicable to "man made" movement of earth, eliminated the ambiguity when loss was created by excavation. Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2012). Plaintiff's building suffered cracks due to an excavation being conducted on the lot next door. A claim was submitted to Travelers, plaintiff's insurer. Travelers rejected the claim, relying on the earth movement exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Dayton v. Ackerman, upholding the decision of the lower court, even as they found that the award was incorrectly computed. The Daytons purchased a house that had been designed and built by the Ackermans, who operated a construction business. The court noted that the warranty with the house promised that “for a period of 60 days, the following items will be free of defects in materials or workmanship: doors (including hardware); windows; electric switches; receptacles; and fixtures; caulking around exterior openings; pluming fixtures; and cabinet work.”

Soon, the Daytons began to experience problems with the house. Many were addressed by the Ackermans, but the Daytons continued to have problems with the windows. Neither side could specify a firm date when the Ackermans were contacted by the Daytons about the window problems. The Ackermans maintained that more than two years passed before the Daytons complained about the windows. The lower court found the Daytons more credible in this.

Initially, the Daytons included the window manufacturer in their suit, but after preliminary investigations, the Daytons dropped Martin Doors from their suit. Martin Doors concluded that the windows were improperly installed, many of them “jammed into openings that were too small for them.”

After the Daytons dismissed Martin Doors, the Ackermans sought to file a third party complaint against them. This was denied by the court, as too much time had elapsed. The Ackermans also noted that not all of the window installations were defective, however, the courts found that the Daytons ought not to have mismatched windows.

Unfortunately for the Daytons, the window repair was done incorrectly and the windows were now too small for the openings. The firm that did the repair discounted the windows and Daytons concealed the problem with plantation shutters, totalling $400 less than the original lowest estimate. However, the appeals court noted that it was here that the trial court made their computation error. Correcting this, the appeals court assessed the Ackermans $12,016.20 instead of $13,016.20.

Finally, the Ackerman’s expert was excluded as he had changed his testimony between deposition and trial. The trial reviewed the expert’s testimony and had it been admissible, it would not have changed the ruling.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Liability Insurer’s Duty To Defend Insured Is Broader Than Its Duty To Indemnify

June 03, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to liability insurance, an insurer’s duty to defend its insured from a third-party claim is much broader than its duty to indemnify. This broad duty to defend an insured is very important and, as an insured, you need to know this. “A liability insurer’s obligation, with respect to its duty to defend, is not determined by the insured’s actual liability but rather by whether the alleged basis of the action against the insurer falls within the policy’s coverage.” Advanced Systems, Inc. v. Gotham Ins. Co., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D996b (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (internal quotation omitted). This means: Even where the complaint alleges facts partially within and partially outside the coverage of a policy, the insurer is nonetheless obligated to defend the entire suit, even if the facts later demonstrate that no coverage actually exists. And, the insurer must defend even if the allegations in the complaint are factually incorrect or meritless. As such, an insurer is obligated to defend a claim even if it is uncertain whether coverage exists under the policy. Furthermore, once a court finds that there is a duty to defend, the duty will continue even though it is ultimately determined that the alleged cause of action is groundless and no liability is found within the policy provisions defining coverage. Advanced Systems, supra(internal citations and quotations omitted). 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

Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

August 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that cosmetic damage to the insured's roof was covered. Advance Cable Co., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9805 (7th Cir. June 11, 2015). The insured submitted a claim to its insurer, Cincinnati, for damage to the metal roof of its building caused by a hail storm. The insured inspected the roof with a claims representative for Cincinnati. Dents were spotted, but there was little other evidence of damage. The loss was estimated at $1,894.74. A check for this amount was sent to the insured. Six months later, the insured considered selling the building. A potential buyer inspected the roof and found hail damage. At the request of the insured, Cincinnati conducted another inspection of the roof. Again, dents of approximately 1 inch in diameter were found. The inspector noted that the denting would not affect the performance of the roof panels or detract from their life expectancy. 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