SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Michigan Court Waives Goodbye to Subrogation Claims, Except as to Gross Negligence

March 13, 2023 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In Ace American Insurance Company, et. al. v. Toledo Engineering Co., Inc., et. al., No. 18-11503, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15222 (Ace American), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determined whether insurers could pursue their subrogation claims against the defendants despite a waiver of subrogation in each of the contracts the insured had with the respective defendants. Based on the language of the contracts and the circumstances leading up to the loss, the court held that the insurers could not pursue their subrogation claims – other than their claims for gross negligence – due to waivers of subrogation in the applicable contracts. In Ace American, the insured, Guardian Industries, LLC (Guardian), retained Toledo Engineer Co., Inc. (TECO) and Dreicor, Inc. (Dreicor) to renovate a glass furnace in the insured’s glass manufacturing plant. Guardian and TECO entered into a contract on December 6, 2016. Guardian and Dreicor entered into a contract on September 29, 2013, that the parties later updated on June 3, 2016. Both defendants began work on the project in the spring of 2017 and were finished with the portion of the work known as the “Cold Tank Repair” prior to the loss. On June 3, 2017, there was an explosion and fire at the plant that caused significant property damage. The plaintiff insurers (Plaintiffs) made payments in the amount of $80 million and became subrogated to its insured’s rights. Plaintiffs then initiated this action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Enerpac Plays Critical Role in Industry-changing Discovery for Long Span Bridges at The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

April 19, 2022 — Enerpac
MENOMONEE FALLS, Wis. (April 18, 2022) – Three years ago when Marc Maguire, assistant professor of construction programs at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, started investigating a new stranded wire product for bridge girder reinforcing he thought the best strands for bridge construction were the industry standard 7-wire strands. After running a multitude of analyses, Maguire and student researchers found that 19-wire 1-1/8 in. diameter strands outperform the typical 7-wire 1-1/6 in. diameter strands and allow bridges to reach unprecedented lengths. Further tests conducted by the Durham School of Architectural Engineering and Construction with the help of Enerpac hydraulic tools examined the bond strength, force transfer, and development length of the 19-wire strands. "Traditionally, 19-wire strands are not often used in the U.S. because they are not widely available and they are much larger than standard strands," said Maguire. "We wanted to show that there was an alternative option to the common 7-wire strand--one that can perform at the same level, if not better." About Enerpac Enerpac is a global market leader in high pressure hydraulic tools, controlled force products, portable machining, on-site services and solutions for precise positioning of heavy loads. As a leading innovator with a 110-year legacy, Enerpac has helped move and maintain some of the largest structures on earth. When safety and precision matters, elite professionals in industries such as aerospace, infrastructure, manufacturing, mining, oil & gas and power generation rely on Enerpac for quality tools, services and solutions. For more information, visit www.enerpac.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Even Fraud in the Inducement is Tough in Construction

November 06, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed how hard it is in the Commonwealth of Virginia to make out a claim for fraud when a construction contract is involved. On limited exception is where a claim for “fraud in the inducement” is involved. Essentially, such a claim states that one party was hoodwinked into entering the contract in the first place. Because of the initial fraud (for instance misrepresenting the class or existence of a contractor’s license), the courts may bypass the terms of the contract and allow a claim for fraud to go forward. While you may think that this would lead to many claims making it past a Motion to Dismiss, at least one court here in Virginia makes it clear that such claims will not be taken lightly and must be supported by specific and substantial allegations that would support more than just “advertising” or opinion. In County of Grayson v. Ra-Tech Services Inc., the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia reviewed an amended complaint from the Plaintiff seeking to make out a claim for fraud in the inducement based upon the defendant’s statements in support of a proposal that certain brands of equipment would be used. The Court further considered general allegations that the Defendant never intended to provide those particular brands of equipment. 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

---

SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

August 13, 2014 — Benjamin Katz – Bloomberg
SIG Plc (SHI) earnings surged 21 percent in the first half as the distributor of building products benefited from a strengthening recovery in the U.K. housing market as well as procurement savings. Underlying operating profit rose to 47.8 million pounds ($80 million) from 39.6 million pounds a year earlier, the Sheffield, England-based company said in a statement today. Sales in the U.K. and Ireland from continuing operations climbed 14 percent to 650 million pounds, offsetting flat revenue in continental Europe. “Trading conditions in the U.K. have continued to gather momentum, led by the revival in the housing market,” Chief Executive Officer Stuart Mitchell said in the statement. “The group’s first-half performance and progress on its strategic initiatives provide a strong base on which to achieve its full-year expectations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Katz, Bloomberg
Mr. Katz may be contacted at bkatz38@bloomberg.net

---

Banks Rejected by U.S. High Court on Mortgage Securities Suits

January 12, 2015 — Greg Stohr – Bloomberg
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and Nomura Holdings Inc. (8604), refusing to derail federal government lawsuits that seek billions of dollars over the sale of risky mortgage-backed securities. The justices today turned away an appeal by four banks, including units of RBS and Nomura, in a case stemming from the collapse of two credit unions that owned more than $1.7 billion in those securities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Greg Stohr, Bloomberg
Mr. Stohr may be contacted at gstohr@bloomberg.net

---

A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

November 30, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
People who live in glass houses should have insurance (in addition to not throwing stones). So too should your construction project. The risks inherent on a construction project are many and varied, ranging from property damage to personal injury to pollution remediation costs, and wise contractors and project owners know that one of the best ways to mitigate these risks is through insurance. So, here’s a primer on what you need to know about insurance on construction projects. Commercial General Liability Insurance (CGL) What it Covers:

• Property damage.
• Bodily injury.
• Personal and advertising injury (e.g., libel and slander).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

January 27, 2020 — Ted R. Gropman & Christine Z. Fan - ConsensusDocs
Construction contracts often include a “no damage for delay” clause that denies a contractor the right to recover delay-related costs and limits the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time for noncontractor-caused delays to a project’s completion date. Depending on the nature of the delay and the jurisdiction where the project is located, the contractual prohibition against delay damages may well be enforceable. This article will explore whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date. Courts are split as to whether damages for a contractor’s “acceleration” efforts are distinguishable from “delay” damages such that they may be recovered under an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause. See, e.g., Siefford v. Hous. Auth. of Humboldt, 223 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 1974) (disallowing the recovery of acceleration damages under a no-damage-for-delay clause); but see Watson Elec. Constr. Co. v. Winston-Salem, 109 N.C. App. 194 (1993) (allowing the recovery of acceleration damages despite a no-damage-for-delay clause). The scope and effect of a no-damage-for-delay clause depend on the specific laws of the jurisdiction and the factual circumstances involved. There are a few ways for a contractor to circumvent an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause to recover acceleration damages. First, the contractor may invoke one of the state’s enumerated exceptions to the enforceability of the clause. It is helpful to keep in mind that most jurisdictions strictly construe a no-damage-for-delay clause to limit its application. This means that, regardless of delay or acceleration, courts will nonetheless permit the contractor to recover damages if the delay is, for example, of a kind not contemplated by the parties, due to an unreasonable delay, or a result of the owner’s fraud, bad faith, gross negligence, active interference or abandonment of the contract. See Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155, 160 (Colo. App. 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. Mo. P. R. Co., 668 F.2d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 1982); Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Iowa S. Utils. Co., 355 F. Supp. 376, 396 (S.D. Iowa 1973). Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Christine Z. Fan, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at gropmant@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

October 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Walls black with mold. Grass growing on carpets. The board chair of the Penhorwood condos, Christine Burton, describes the photos as “a pretty shocking sight.” The residents were all evicted in 2011 and given only fifteen minutes to gather what possessions they could after the buildings were found to be structurally unsound. An attempt was made to stabilize the buildings, but they kept shifting and cracking, exposing the interiors to the elements. The owners of the Fort McMurray condominium complex are suing the developer, contractor, and others for $60 million. Fort McMurray has ordered that the buildings be torn down, although the condo owners don’t have the funds for this. Even the funds for continuing the lawsuit are hard to come by. Ms. Burton notes “because of the evacuation and the cost of stabilizing the building so that we could go in and get people’s furniture and personal effect out has pretty much depleted our funds.” The owners “have no more money.” The condo owners are hoping that they can sell the land where their former homes are in order to recoup some of their losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---