Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Reroof Blamed for $10 Million in Damage

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A renovation of the city hall in Bay City, Michigan went wrong when roof repairs lead to fire and flooding of the historic building. Bay City has sued Gregory Construction and Mihm Enterprises, who earlier had been awarded a $1.5 million contract to reroof the building. The cost of repairing the building is expected to exceed the city’s insurance limit of $10 million. The fire that damaged the building is alleged to have started when a roofer allegedly used a DeWalt grinder in attempt to remove some bolts. Under the contract with the city, the contractor was not going to use grinders, due to the risk of fire. The suit alleges that further water damage was caused, beyond the damage due to the firefighting, due to the contractor failing to “secure a section of the roof which was part of the Roofing Project with a tarp or other water-resistant covering.” The contractors dispute the claims made by Bay City, with Gregory Construction describing them as “untrue and contrary to the facts.” Gregory Construction also claims that their obligations were delegated to Mihn Enterprises. Mihn Enterprises disputes this and states that they do not “owe a duty to the Plaintiffs; as a result their negligence claim is unenforceable as a matter of law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
After buying a home in Louisiana, Mike Gines determined that the home’s air conditioning unit was insufficient to maintain an appropriate temperature. He contacted the home builder, D.R. Horton, Inc., which worked with the air conditioning installer, Reliant Heating & Air Conditioning, in order to repair the system. When the problems persisted, Gines filed a class action petition against Horton and Reliant in state court. Horton and Reliant moved the case to the federal courts, whereupon Gines asserted the defendants were in violation of the Louisiana New Home Warranty Act (NHWA). Horton stated that the claim under the NHWA was invalid, because Gines had not alleged actual physical damage to his home. The district court granted Horton’s motion to dismiss. Gines sought a reversal from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and sought to have two questions of state law addressed by the Louisiana Supreme Court. The district court ruled that the NHWA was the “sole remedy under Louisiana law for a purchaser of a new home with construction defects. Gines argued that court erred in this, but also conceded that this was the conclusion of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Further, Gines argued that a provision in the NHWA that allows the inclusion of construction defects that do not cause damage was satisfied by paragraph 6 of the contract. The court noted that Gines did not attach a copy of the contract to either the original or amended complaint, and so the court does not need to address these claims. However, the court cautioned that if a copy had been included, they still would have rejected the claim, as “the cited language does not indicate a waiver of the physical damage requirement.” They also note that “paragraph 13 of the contract shows that Gines was aware to the absence of any such waiver in the contract.” The court concludes that “the moral of this story is that in order to avoid the harsh result that has obtained here, the buyer of a newly constructed home in Louisiana should seek to obtain in the contract of sale an express waiver of the actual damage requirement of the NHWA.” The appeals court affirmed the decision of the circuit court and denied the application to certify questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP Expands into Georgia

November 03, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ Staff
Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) has opened a new regional office in Atlanta, Georgia. Richard E. Zelonka, Jr., will be the Managing Partner. With over a decade of trial experience, Mr. Zelonka has handled complex litigation in both state and federal courts throughout the Southeastern United States. “I am thrilled to be joining Wood Smith Henning & Berman. WSHB’s sterling reputation, coupled with its national footprint, is especially attractive. That, coupled with the Firm’s passionate dedication to their clients, made this move a very easy choice for me,” said Mr. Zelonka. “I could not be more excited to lead WSHB’s new Georgia office.” The Firm’s Atlanta office is located at 1170 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1200, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. The main phone number is (404) 885-5700. The fax number is (404) 506-9108. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

October 26, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The history of asbestos regulation in the United States is complicated. Prior to the 1970s, asbestos-containing materials used in construction was widespread. In 1971, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an emissions standard for asbestos as part of the Clean Air Act. In 1972, the EPA extended this regulation to an occupational standard and, over the next decade, the EPA together with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a wide array of regulations aimed at asbestos. 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

Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

November 04, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an insurer, which received notice of a bodily injury accident three years after it happened, was not “appreciably prejudiced” by such late notice, even as the court acknowledged notice three years later did not satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The court also held that the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the operation of “cherry pickers and similar devices,” did not apply because the accident arose out of the use of a “scissor lift,” which is not a device similar to a cherry picker. East Coast Painting arose out of a Queens, New York bridge-painting project, during which an employee of the insured, East Coast Painting and Maintenance LLC was injured while “standing on a scissor lift mounted to the back of a truck,” owned and operated by East Coast. The employee sued various project-related entities which, in turn, joined East Coast as a defendant. East Coast sought coverage under its business auto policy, and the insurer agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. The insurer subsequently sought a declaration that it did not owe coverage based on, among other things, the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” and the insured’s failure to satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The insurer moved for summary judgment on both of those bases, but the court in East Coast Painting denied the motion. As for the insurer’s “prompt notice” defense, the court in East Coast Painting concluded that, the insured’s notice to the insurer was not prompt because it did not receive notice until three years after the accident. But, the court added, the inquiry does not end there. “[T]his Court must determine whether [the insurer] was appreciably prejudiced by that delay.” Reviewing the facts, the court held that the insurer was not “appreciably prejudiced,” even though during the three-year delay the lift truck was “not properly maintained” or “in the same condition it was at the time of the Accident.” The court observed that the insurer had “ample other evidence with which it can defend itself,” such as experts who inspected the lift truck and opined about the cause of the accident.” [Emphasis added.] Further, “there are multiple contemporaneous accident reports,” “a list of the East Coast employees on site at the time,” “photographs of the lift truck and its location when [the employee] was injured,” and “depositions of [the employee] and others regarding the events at issue.” Thus, the court held, the insurer was not prejudiced and summary judgment was inappropriate. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Termination of Construction Contracts

November 30, 2020 — Stuart Rosen - Construction Executive
Lately, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a heightened concern that some construction projects will not proceed as planned. Therefore, it is important to review each party’s right to terminate a construction contract and to examine some of the resulting consequences. While the parties to a construction contract can, as always, agree to other mutually acceptable terms and provisions, in broad terms, a typical construction contract includes four triggering events that can lead to termination. First, an owner can terminate a construction contract if the contractor defaults and thereafter fails to cure such default, which may include, without limitation, the failure to remediate deficient work, the failure to meet the construction schedule, the failure to pay subcontractors and the failure to comply with applicable law. A contractor must be mindful of the fact that in the case of such termination by the owner for cause, the vast majority of construction contracts provide that the contractor will not be entitled to receive any further payment for work performed by the contractor until the work is finished. Reprinted courtesy of Stuart Rosen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Rosen may be contacted at srosen@proskauer.com

Preliminary Notice Is More Important Than Ever During COVID-19

June 01, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome Justin Gitelman. Justin is the Content Coordinator at Levelset, where over 500,000 contractors and suppliers connect on a cloud-based platform to make payment processes stress-free. Levelset helps contractors and suppliers get payment under control, and sees a world where no one loses a night’s sleep over payment. As the construction industry continues to adjust to the coronavirus and an uncertain future, contractors are struggling to get paid. During the COVID-19 pandemic, construction businesses across Virginia need to do everything they can to protect their payments, and get paid faster. One simple action that can help fight payment delays: sending preliminary notice on every job. Subcontractors and suppliers should send preliminary notices out to the GC, project owner, and/or lender at the start of every single project. These tools allow contractors to make themselves visible on crowded job sites, helping contractors get paid more quickly, and, in some cases, securing their right to file a mechanics lien or bond claim. Preliminary Notices in Construction The purpose of a preliminary notice is to allow each member of a construction project to know who you are and what work you’ll be performing. With coronavirus in mind, contractors can use preliminary notices to remind the hiring party of their payment expectations. When you submit a preliminary notice on every project, you’ll have legal protection in your corner while also giving yourself a greater opportunity to get paid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrissghill@constructionlawva.com

A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

October 16, 2018 — George Talarico - Construction Executive
Part I addressed general conditions, revised insurance terms, revisions that affect owner’s required insurance and revisions that affect contractor’s required insurance. REVISIONS THAT AFFECT DISPUTE RESOLUTION A seemingly minor but noteworthy change is to the definition of “Claim.” Under Section 15.1 a “Claim” is defined to:

include a request for a modification of contract time; and
exclude any requirement that an owner must file a claim to impose liquidated damages.

Notably, any request relating to contract time must be brought within the specified time period for Notice of Claim and in the prescribed manner. There are at least two traps for the unwary. First, even though email is regularly used for communications among the parties, the revised contract documents do not recognize email as an acceptable form of delivery of a Notice of Claim. Second, an unwary contractor may wrongly assume that an owner’s failure to assert a claim for LDs means that LDs will not be imposed. This may lull the contractor into failing to timely assert its own claim for a time extension and thereby waiving its ability to do so. Reprinted courtesy of George Talarico, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Talarico may be contacted at gtalarico@sillscummis.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES