Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Settlement Reached in California Animal Shelter Construction Defect Case

May 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A construction defect case involving an animal shelter in Healdsburg, California has settled after two years of litigation, according to The Press Democrat. The $3.5 million, 7,500-square foot building had been “built largely with a behest from the estate of the late vintner Rodney Strong and his wife, Charlotte.” However, “shortly before the facility could be completed in late 2011, general contractor Syd Kelly went bankrupt. Unpaid sub-contractors filed liens for payment against the Healdsburg Animal Shelter, which in turn alleged construction and design defects in the building.” The Press Democrat reported that “[t]he most visible signs of problems were cracks in the cement foundation.” Robert Wilkie, the Healdsburg Animal Shelter board’s secretary-treasurer, stated that the shelter is “perfectly structurally viable and a rather attractive building” and that “the defects that make it not usable today can be mitigated in a variety of different ways.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Los Angeles and Orange Counties are first on a list no area wants to be on. According to the Sacramento Bee, reporting on data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, LA and Orange Counties saw an $8 billion drop in construction wages in 2010, as compared to 2006. In 2006, the region saw payrolls of $26.8 billion, but in 2010, that was reduced to $18.5 billion.

This was not the largest percentage change. Of the metropolitan areas with the largest declines in construction earnings, Las Vegas saw a $3.6 billion drop, however that represented half of their 2006 totals of $7.2 billion. Conversely, a $3.3 billion drop in the New York area represented only 10% of what had been $33.8 billion in payroll in 2006.

Read the full story…

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

Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

November 06, 2023 — Mark Sudol - Engineering News-Record
New regulations published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dramatically reduce federal protections of previously regulated streams and wetlands. This change will lead to further controversy and litigation as the legal terms are applied to physical features on the ground leading to conflicting interpretations by the regulated public, environmentalists and federal agencies. Reprinted courtesy of Mark Sudol, 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

There is No Presumptive Resumption!

January 21, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Louisiana school board filed suit in court in 2018 on a construction project but was rebuffed based upon arguments by the general contractor and surety defendants. Those defendants asserted that the court filings were premature, based upon an arbitration clause in the general contract. The trial court agreed and stayed the litigation, “pending completion of arbitration.” Arbitration was never filed. Interestingly, within the arbitration clause, the following language existed: “For statute of limitations purposes, receipt of written demand for arbitration shall constitute the institution of legal or equitable proceedings based upon the Claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements

February 03, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
With increasing frequency in the construction defect cases we defend, we are seeing commercial general liability insurance policies with “subcontractor warranty” endorsements. Also known as contractor or subcontractor special conditions, these endorsements could have severe and negative consequences for builders that do not comply with their requirements. In researching for this article, I reviewed six different endorsements used by six different carriers, all of which contained some or all of the following requirements:

The builder must have signed subcontract agreements with its subcontractors that require subcontractors to hold harmless, i.e., defend and indemnify, the builder for “bodily injury” or “property damage” claims caused by their negligence.
The subcontractors must maintain their own insurance with limits equal to or greater than the limits in the builder’s own policy, with limits of at least $1 million per occurrence.
The subcontractors’ insurance must not exclude the work being performed for the builder, e.g., the excavator’s policy cannot exclude earth movement claims, the subcontractor’s policy cannot exclude residential construction.
The subcontractors must maintain their own workers’ compensation and/or employer’s liability insurance.
The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that the builder has been added to the subcontractors’ insurance as an additional insured.
The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that their insurance carriers have agreed to provide waivers of subrogation in favor of the builder.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

February 14, 2022 — Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that liability insurers have a duty to defend their insureds in construction defect cases when the underlying complaint alleges damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured – even if the complaint merely implies that the insured seeks such damage, without explicitly alleging so. Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, No. 20-11076, 2022 WL 99303 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022). The Archdiocese of New York replaced the roof over Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, using a roofing membrane manufactured by Siplast, Inc. (“Siplast”). After a rainstorm a few years later, school officials reported water damage to the ceiling tiles throughout the school, and repair attempts only made the leaking worse. Siplast disputed that the leaks were its fault and refused to replace the roof, so the Archdiocese sued. Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View

November 01, 2021 — Levi W. Barrett, Nathan A. Cohen & Stewart Shurtleff - ConsensusDocs
For centuries the ability to construct sophisticated structures has been the yardstick for measuring civilizations. Naturally, as our knowledge and capacity to build has evolved and developed over the ages, the methods of project delivery have similarly progressed. From Design-Bid-Build to CM-at-Risk and Design-Build to Integrated Project Delivery, each method developed to fit a very specific need—but each carries its own set of inherent risks and rewards. In this article we explore key aspects and differences among the various delivery methods that are commonly used in today’s construction industry, and provide guidance related to the obligations and risk profiles of the parties involved. Ideally, contractors and construction managers may refer to the advice provided herein when determining whether a proposed delivery method properly fits the requirements of the project under consideration. Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Stewart Shurtleff, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Mr. Shurtleff may be contacted at sshurtleff@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Great news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation. New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES