Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Cold Stress Safety and Protection

February 27, 2023 — The Hartford Staff - The Hartford Insights
The best time to think about cold stress safety isn’t when it’s about to snow – it’s actually when it’s still warm out. “Construction firms and other businesses may start to think about protecting workers against the cold when frigid temperatures and the winter are right around the corner. But we’ve found that oftentimes, that may be too late to start thinking about cold stress prevention,” said Chris O’Hala, director of construction Risk Engineering at The Hartford. “Thinking about cold protection months ahead can prevent serious injuries, illnesses or even death.” O’Hala added that possible solutions for cold-related risks, like planning for temporary heat or building temporary enclosures, “require very specific planning, equipment and materials.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

November 23, 2020 — Stephen M. Tye & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
In RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., the Fourth Appellate District held that a trial court properly granted an anti-SLAPP motion because the recording of a mechanic’s lien is protected by the litigation privilege. In RGC Gaslamp, subcontractor Ehmcke Sheet Metal Company (“Ehmcke”) recorded a mechanic’s lien to recoup payment due for sheet metal fabrication and installation done at a luxury hotel project in downtown San Diego. Project owner RGC Gaslamp, LLC (“RGC”) recorded a release bond for the lien. Thereafter, Ehmcke recorded three successive mechanic’s liens identical to the first, prompting RGC to sue it for quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory and injunctive relief. After retaining California counsel, Ehmcke then released its liens and advised it did not intend to record any more. Ehmcke then filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.) which was granted. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Their remodels may dazzle on television, but someone who hired Bunelleschi Construction, the company owned by “Kitchen Cousins” stars John Colaneri and Anthony Carrino, wasn’t quite so dazzled. And now Robert and Peng Avery are suing the two men and their company for a kitchen remodel gone awry. They claim that the company left their Tenafly, New Jersey home uninhabitable. According to the couple, the Brunelleschi’s work included “numerous gaps in sheetrock” and improper installation of ductwork, plumbing, and doors. They also claim that Brunelleschi Construction falsely claimed the work had passed final building and electrical inspections. When the company stopped work, the couple was unable to obtain a certificate of occupancy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insured’s Bad Faith Insurance Claim Evaporates Before its Eyes

August 03, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Sometimes it’s right there before your eyes. Then, poof, it’s gone. This was the experience of one insured, who brought a bad faith insurance denial claim against his insurer thinking that the facts were in his favor, only to discover they were not. The 501 E .51st Street Case The Water Main Break and AGI’s Report The owner of a 10-unit apartment building built in 1963, 501 East 51st Street, Long Beach-10 LLC (just rolls off the tongue doesn’t it?), filed a bad faith action against its insurer Kookmin Best Insurance Co., Ltd., after it denied 501 East’s insurance tender following a water main break that caused the building’s foundation to subside. The water main break occurred sometimes between December 31, 2015 and January 2, 2016 next to the southwest side of the building. 501 East tendered its insurance claim to Kookmin on March 8, 2016, and in April 2016, presented a report prepared by American Geotechnical, Inc. (“AGI”) concerning damage to the building. According to the report prepared by AGI, AGI conducted a “limited geotechnical investigation” to “evaluate site conditions relating to the reported building distress following a waterline breach near the south end of the building.” The scope of AGI’s investigation was limited to “observation, photo documentation of the site conditions, [and[ floor-level survey of the interior of the first level units.” AGI’s investigation did not involve any subsurface investigation or soil testing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

The “Your Work” Exclusion—Is there a Trend against Coverage?

September 10, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Two more courts have weighed in on the “your work” exclusion in commercial general liability (CGL) policies, finding that contractors did not have coverage for work performed improperly. These cases highlight that whether you have coverage for poor workmanship will depend on the state’s law applied. It now appears that if you are in South Carolina or Massachusetts, you will not have coverage. The South Carolina case, Precision Walls, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, involved a subcontractor hired to tape insulation. After taping the insulation, a brick veneer was installed on the exterior. During the brick installation, the mason reported that the tape was losing its adhesion and the subcontractor was instructed to repair the problem. In order to access the tape, portions of the brick veneer had to be removed and re-installed. The subcontractor then sought coverage for the costs associated with repairing the tape. The insurer denied coverage and the subcontractor sued its insurer. The court ruled in favor of the insurer, finding that the defective tape was “your work” because it was “material furnished in connection” with the subcontractor’s work. The policy specifically excluded from coverage damage to property caused by “your work”. Thus, there was no coverage for the subcontractor. 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

Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application

October 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In construction, one of the easiest claims to prove from a burden of proof standpoint is that of a supplier, particularly a rental equipment supplier. Oftentimes, these claims are more in the realm of a collection claim because a rental supplier will generally be able to establish that a party opened an account with them, signed a credit application and personal guaranty, and equipment was rented and even delivered to a specific jobsite during set dates. Defending these claims is not so easy. And even if there is a defense as it relates to some amounts, there needs to be an upside challenging those amounts when factoring in the attorney’s fees, costs, and interest on the other amounts and on continuing the dispute. An example of the difficulty in defending these claims from rental suppliers can be found in the recent case of Custom Design Expo, Inc. v. Synergy Rents, Inc., 2021 WL 4125806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). Here, a contractor rented equipment (e.g, forklifts) from a supplier. The equipment was rented on an open account and the contractor signed a personal guaranty. The supplier sued the contractor for about $81,000 that remained unpaid. The supplier appeared to waste no time and moved for summary judgment with an affidavit from its credit manager. The credit manager affirmed that the contractor executed a credit application for purposes of renting equipment on an open account, the application contained a personal guaranty, and the credit application formed the basis of a contract. The credit manager authenticated the credit application and affirmed that the contractor owed it about $81,000 in unpaid amounts for rental equipment that was furnished under the credit application. 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

Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A California court ruled that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that had been approved by the city of San Francisco was adequate for the proposed 8,000-home development on Treasure Island, according to the San Francisco Business Times. The suit had been brought by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island back in 2011. However, in December of 2012, “a lower court affirmed the EIR and the citizens’ group appealed that decision.” The project was proposed by partners Lennar Corp. and Wilson Meany. The development would “add thousands of new housing units along with retail, hotel and office space in addition to renovating historic buildings and creating 300 acres of open space.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

June 11, 2014 — Earl Forte – White and Williams LLP
On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 12-1200, in which the court confirmed that the power of the nation’s bankruptcy courts to hear and decide cases involving state-created private rights in which the bankruptcy proof of claim process has not been directly invoked, is severely limited by Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The decision in Executive Benefits, while providing some clarity to practitioners and the public following the Court’s June 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), nevertheless will make a substantial portion of bankruptcy litigation matters more cumbersome and potentially more expensive to guide through the bankruptcy system. Clients and practitioners are best advised to hire knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the more complex procedural waters created by this decision. Although the Court in Executive Benefits did resolve a pending procedural question that had dogged practitioners since Stern was decided in 2011, the Court’s decision in Executive Benefits now makes it abundantly clear that many disputes that were previously heard and decided in the nation’s bankruptcy courts can no longer be decided there and must be submitted to the district courts for full de novo review and entry of a final judgment or order. It is difficult to see how this decision will not make bankruptcy litigation more cumbersome and expensive by adding an additional layer of judicial involvement to many matters, notably to fraudulent transfer and other avoidance “claw back” actions that historically have been decided in the bankruptcy courts and used famously in Madoff and other cases as an efficient device for creating value for creditors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Earl Forte, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Forte may be contacted at fortee@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES