SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Buy a House or Pay Off College? $1.2 Trillion Student Debt Heats Up in Capital

June 11, 2014 — Janet Lorin – Bloomberg
Jennifer Day spends 12 percent of her monthly take-home pay on debt that funded a master’s degree in urban and regional planning, money she’d rather be saving toward a home. “I spend $364 a month for student loans,” said Day, 33, who conducts market research for the hospitality industry at a consulting firm in New Orleans. “To me, that is a down payment or ultimately savings down the line.” Under legislation sponsored by U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Day would save about $75 a month on her payments. The bill, which could come up for a vote on the Senate floor as soon as tomorrow, would let 25 million borrowers with federal and private loans refinance their balances at lower interest rates, according to Education Department estimates. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Janet Lorin, Bloomberg
Ms. Lorin may be contacted at jlorin@bloomberg.net

---

No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

September 14, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found there was no coverage for alleged defects caused by the insured homebuilder. Canal Indem. Co. v. Carbin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126662 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 10, 2017). Carbin Construction filed suit against Aaron and Sherry Ford, asserting mechanic's and materialman's liens, and seeking sums allegedly due for work performed under a construction contract. The Fords filed a counterclaim, alleging that over a year had passed since Carbin was to complete construction, and that Carbin refused to do any further work on the house until he was paid an additional $11,771.43. The Fords further contended that Carbin had walked off the job after receiving 96.6 percent of the money owed under the contract although only 88 percent of the construction work had been completed. Carbin tendered the counterclaim to Canal. Canal then filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. 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

---

When Must a New York Insurer Turn Over a Copy of the Policy?

December 23, 2023 — Nicholas P. Hurzeler - Lewis Brisbois
New York, N.Y. (December 7, 2023) - It has long been the rule in New York that a defendant should disclose all insurance policies that might provide coverage to the plaintiff for an underlying claim. McKiernan v Vaccaro, 168 AD3d 827 [2d Dept 2019]; Keenan v Harbor View Health & Beauty Spa, 205 AD2d 589 [2d Dept 1994]. This rule applies to all tort cases, including motor vehicle; however, it does not apply to lawsuits seeking to recover No Fault expenses (see, CPLR 3101(f)(5)). Frequently, a plaintiff will demand a copy of the policy even when the claim is still pre-suit. This raises the question of when the insurer must comply with this specific type of discovery demand in New York. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

December 06, 2021 — Richard Korman, Jonathan Barnes, & Greg Aragon - Engineering News-Record
When Elmhurst Group, a Pittsburgh-area developer, started collecting bids for a new mixed-use building last November, the price of the steel frame, roof and cladding panels for the $14-million project came in $382,000 higher than expected—a big enough disappointment to give Elmhurst pause. Overall material costs for the project were running more than $650,000 above what was originally calculated. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record, Jonathan Barnes, Engineering News-Record and Greg Aragon, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Leftover Equipment and Materials When a Contractor Is Abruptly Terminated

November 06, 2023 — Brian Perlberg - ConsensusDocs
Termination for cause is costly and adversarial and has been covered in this article. But can a terminating party use equipment and tools left behind on the worksite (i.e., a crane)? The answer depends on what is in your contract. Under ConsensusDocs, a constructor must give its permission to use any equipment or supplies left at the worksite, such as a crane.[i] Moreover, the owner must indemnify the constructor for using their equipment. This makes sense because even if a constructor were appropriately terminated for cause, using their equipment and materials they no longer possess or control unfairly creates additional liability exposure. At a minimum, the owner should take on the risk of using the equipment and materials since they benefit from such use. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Perlberg, ConsensusDocs Coalition
Mr. Perlberg may be contacted at bperlberg@ConsensusDocs.org

---

Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

February 11, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:

The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.

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

---

Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language

February 23, 2016 — Greg Steinberg – White and Williams LLP
The hallmark of a claims-made insurance policy is that the policy only provides coverage for claims that are “first made” during the policy period. As noted by the Texas Supreme Court, “for the insurer, the inherent benefit of a claims-made policy is the insurer's ability to close its books on a policy at its expiration and thus to attain a level of predictability unattainable under standard occurrence policies.”[1] To ensure this “level of predictability,” claims-made insurance policies contain provisions stating that all “Related Claims” will be treated as a single claim deemed first made at the time the earliest of such claims was made. The “Related Claims” provision is an issue that comes up time and again – claims can span years, especially in the context of regulatory investigations, which often culminate in enforcement proceedings and litigation. This inevitably leads to disputes regarding whether later claims can be related back to the earlier claim, an issue that becomes even thornier when different insurers participate on different policy years. Over time, case law on “Related Claims” has been mixed and somewhat inconsistent, with each case tending to hinge on its own unique set of facts, making it difficult to identify a clear standard for determining whether claims are related. However, three recent decisions out of the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits show that courts are increasingly deferring to the plain language of the policy and applying these provisions broadly. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Greg Steinberg, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.



Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.



In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.



In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”



Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.



In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.



Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.



The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”



Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---