SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

First Railroad Bridge Between Russia and China Set to Open

August 06, 2019 — Saibal Dasgupta - Engineering News-Record
Work was completed on the first-ever railroad bridge connecting Russia to China in early April, as Russian engineers installed the final steel beam in its section of the structure over the river called the Amur in Russian and the Heilongjiang. China finished its part of the work last October, as the structure successfully spanned the world's 10th longest river, which markets the boundary between the two countries. Officials say the bridge will open for public use after the necessary inspections in July this year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Saibal Dasgupta, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance

July 10, 2023 — Marisa Miller, John Yacovelle & Kazim Naqvi - Sheppard Mullin
On June 10, 2023, a jury in Portland, Oregon found PacifiCorp and Pacific Power (collectively, “PacifiCorp”) liable for negligence, trespass, and nuisance based on a series of four wildfires that occurred during Labor Day weekend in 2020. PacifiCorp prevailed against the plaintiffs on the claim of inverse condemnation. With respect to the tort-based claims, the jury awarded approximately $72 million in compensatory damages to 17 plaintiffs. The jury later found PacifiCorp liable for $18 million in punitive damages, or one quarter of the compensatory damages that the jury awarded to the 17 plaintiffs. The jury’s liability findings apply to a broader class of owners, whose damages will need to be individually proven in a yet-to-be defined second phase of proceedings. Post-verdict motion practice and appeals may affect the jury’s findings. Reprinted courtesy of Marisa Miller, Sheppard Mullin, John Yacovelle, Sheppard Mullin and Kazim Naqvi, Sheppard Mullin Ms. Miller may be contacted at mmiller@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Yacovelle may be contacted at jyacovelle@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Naqvi may be contacted at knaqvi@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

November 28, 2018 — CDJ STAFF
The Second Circuit recently held that competing “anti-concurrent cause” provisions in a commercial property policy present a potential ambiguity that could result in favor of coverage for losses sustained by Madelaine Chocolate after storm surge from Hurricane Sandy combined to cause substantial damage to Madelaine’s property and a resulting loss of income. Madelaine was insured under an all-risk insurance policy issued by Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Company. By endorsement, Madelaine’s policy added “windstorm” as a covered peril and defined “windstorm” as “wind… regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributes concurrently to, or contributed in any sequence to, the loss or damage.” The policy also included a common flood exclusion that removed coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from waves, tidal water, or tidal waves, or the rising, overflowing, or breaking of any natural harbors, oceans, or any other body of water, whether driven by wind or not. Like the windstorm endorsement, the flood exclusion contained concurrency language that broadened the exclusion to any loss to which flood contributed, regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributed to the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Preservationists Want to Save Penn Station. Yes, That Penn Station.

December 20, 2021 — Kriston Capps - Bloomberg
In November, as one of her first major acts since taking office, New York Governor Kathy Hochul pared back development plans for New York City’s Pennsylvania Station set in place by her predecessor, disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo. The Cuomo plan would have greatly expanded Penn Station and upscaled the neighborhood; Hochul’s vision narrows the scope of work, but it still stands to dramatically transform the subterranean transportation hub, which has been the focus of various unrealized redesign dreams for decades. On Dec. 8, critics and supporters sounded off on the Penn Station scheme in a public hearing. More than 200 people registered to weigh in on how the 10 new skyscrapers coming to the area (shrunk down a bit under Hochul) would affect the scale and character of the community, and the historic buildings that would need to be razed to make way for new development. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

---

Standard of Care

December 16, 2019 — Jay Gregory - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
One of the key concepts at the heart of Board complaints and civil claims against a design professional is whether or not that design professional complied with the applicable standard of care. In order to prevail on such a claim, the claimant must establish (typically with the aid of expert testimony) that the design professional deviated from the standard of care. On the other side of the coin, to defend a design professional against a professional malpractice claim, defense counsel attempts to establish that – contrary to the claimant’s allegations – the design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. Obviously, it becomes very important in such a claim situation to determine what the standard of care is that applies to the conduct of the defendant design professional. Often, this is easier said than done. There is no dictionary definition or handy guidebook that identifies the precise standard of care that applies in any given situation. The “standard of care” is a concept and, as such, is flexible and open to interpretation. Traditionally, the standard of care is expressed as being that level of service or competence generally employed by average or prudent practitioners under the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locale. In other words, to meet the standard of care a design professional must generally follow the pack; he or she need not be perfect, exemplary, outstanding, or even superior – it is sufficient merely for the designer to do that which a reasonably prudent practitioner would do under similar circumstances. The negative or reverse definition also applies, to meet the standard of care, a practitioner must refrain from doing what a reasonably prudent practitioner would have refrained from doing. Although we have this ready definition of the standard of care, in any given dispute it is practically inevitable that the parties will have markedly different opinions as to: (1) what the standard of care required of the designer; and (2) whether the defendant design professional complied with that requirement. The claimant bringing a claim against a design professional typically will be able to find an expert reasonably qualified (at least on paper) who will offer an opinion that the defendant failed to comply with the standard of care. It is just as likely that the counsel for the defendant design professional will be able to find his or her own expert who will counter the opinion of the claimant’s expert and maintain that the defendant design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. What’s a jury to think? The concept of standard of care is intertwined with the legal concept of negligence. In the vast majority of law suits against design professionals, a claimant (known as the plaintiff) will assert a claim for negligence against the design professional now known as the defendant.1 As every first year law student learns while studying the field of “Torts,” negligence has four subparts. In order for a defendant to be found negligent, the claimant must establish four elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. In other words, to establish a claim against a defendant design professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care but breached that duty and, as a result, caused the plaintiff to suffer damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jay Gregory, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Gregory may be contacted at jgregory@grsm.com

---

Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All

May 22, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Remember back in 2021 when I “mused” about Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al.? Remember how the Eastern District of Virginia held that mere supervision does not qualify as “labor” under the federal Miller Act? Well, the 4th Circuit recently weighed in on the appeal of that case and had some interesting things to say about the definition of labor. As a quick reminder, Plaintiff worked as a project manager on a project to repair and upgrade certain stairs at the Pentagon. Plaintiff subcontracted with prime contractor Forney Enterprises Inc. on this project. On Dec. 20, 2018, the prime contract was terminated. Plaintiff filed the Miller Act suit on Feb. 5, 2020. Dickson alleged that Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, or F&D, must pay him, pursuant to the Miller Act, the amount he is owed for the labor he performed on the project. Now before the district court were cross-motions for summary judgment. In evaluating Plaintiff’s claims, the district court examined the defendant’s claims that (1) Dickson’s work did not qualify as “Labor” under the Miller Act, and (2) that the suit was not timely filed. The Eastern District of Virginia court agreed with both arguments. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

December 14, 2020 — Peter Shapiro, Drake Mirsch & Jade McKenzie - Lewis Brisbois
On November 19, 2020, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) proposed sweeping and significant new emergency standards to reduce employee exposure to COVID-19. These standards have been accepted by the Office of Administrative Law and are effective as of November 30, 2020. Accordingly, it is critical that employers familiarize themselves with these new requirements and begin to implement these standards as quickly as possible. The standards include COVID-19 prevention in the workplace, multiple COVID-19 infections and outbreaks in the workplace, “major” COVID-19 outbreaks in the workplace, prevention in employer provided housing, and prevention in employer-provided transportation to and from work. They apply to all California employers and places of employment, except places with one employee who does not have contact with others, employees working from home, or employees in specified health care facilities, services or operations when covered by section 5199. COVID-19 Prevention Program Employers are required to establish, implement, and maintain an “effective” written COVID-19 Prevention Program. Under the Program, an employer is responsible for developing a system for communicating about COVID-19, identifying and evaluating COVID-19 hazards, investigating and responding to COVID-19 cases, correcting COVID-19 hazards, providing training and instructions to employees regarding COVID-19, ensuring all employees are physically distanced, providing face coverings, implementing policies regarding personal protective equipment and recordkeeping, ensuring COVID-19 cases are excluded from the workplace, and prohibiting symptomatic employees from returning to work unless certain requirements are met. Reprinted courtesy of Peter Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois, Drake Mirsch, Lewis Brisbois and Jade McKenzie, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Mirsch may be contacted at Drake.Mirsch@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. McKenzie may be contacted at Jade.Mckenzie@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

December 02, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Benjamin Franklin may never have been President but he’s better known than most of them. Not least of all for his pithy quotes on a wide range of subjects:

On personal finance – “A penny saved is a penny earned.”

On education – “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn.”

On getting real – “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

On guests – “Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.”

On lawyers – “A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats.”

On beer – “In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria.”

But if you were to pick one theme that seems to recur the most in Franklin’s quotes, it would be productivity:

“Time is money.”

“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”

“Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today.”

“Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man happy, wealthy and wise.”

But, as the next case, Grebow v. Mercury Insurance Company, Case No. B261172, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (October 21, 2015), illustrates, sometimes the most efficient way of doing things may not necessarily be the most financially prudent way of doing things. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---