Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Tigard-Tualatin School District in Tigard, Oregon filed a lawsuit against Robinson Construction for water damage to the Alberta Rider Elementary school, built in 2005, according to The Oregonian. The school district “is seeking $1.4 million in damages.” According to the suit, as quoted by The Oregonian, the school district “holds Robinson responsible for faulty construction of the school’s panel siding, windows, doors, exterior walls and more.” Repairs began in December of 2011, reported The Oregonian, and the cost so far is more than one million: “The district had to replace parts of the ‘exterior wall cladding system’ and remove and reinstall ‘storefront windows and window/door assemblies to ensure watertight performance,’ in addition to other alterations, the lawsuit reads.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The city of Ardmore, Oklahoma is seeing a building boom with the total value of building permits issued by the city in November slightly exceeded $7.5 million, reports Ardmoreite.com. Most of that total comes from residential construction, with the bulk of it coming from just three homes. While Lance Windel Construction plans on building 46 homes, the top value of those homes will be $153,000. The total value for the homes being built by three other firms is more $6.4 million, and those contractors are building just one home each. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage

February 05, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The broad asbestos exclusion found in a Business Owners policy barred coverage for the insured after it sold a building in which asbestos was discovered. Phillips v. Parmelee, 2013 Wisc. LEXIS 747 (Dec. 27, 2013). Prior to purchasing an apartment building, the insured had the building inspected. The report indicated that the building's heating supply ducts likely contained asbestos. The insured then sought to sell the building. The Real Estate Condition Report stated the insured was not aware of "asbestos or asbestos-containing materials on the premises." The buyers purchased the property. A contractor cut through asbestos-wrapped ducts, dispersing asbestos throughout the building. The buyers sued the insured for breach of contract/warranty and negligence in failing to adequately disclose defective conditions including asbestos. 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

Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment

November 19, 2021 — Bradley T. Guldalian - Traub Lieberman
On September 14, 2021, Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment on behalf of a City which operated a park containing a natural bathing spring in Sarasota County, Florida. The underlying loss occurred when the Plaintiff went to the park, entered the spring without incident, swam for more than an hour, then exited the spring and was returning to the area where she had stored her belongings when she slipped and fell on mud and grass, sustaining an open angulated fracture of her right tibia and fibula. The Plaintiff was rushed to the hospital where she underwent open reduction, internal fixation surgery on her right leg which consisted of implantation of a metal rod into the medullary cavity of her tibia that was secured by two proximal and two distal interlocking screws. She was in the hospital for four days. Upon discharge, the Plaintiff was placed in a walking boot and confined to a wheelchair for several months. The Plaintiff incurred nearly $100,000 in medical expenses. The Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the City claiming it failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Plaintiff also alleged that the City failed to warn her that the area where she had stored her belongings had become saturated and slippery proximately causing her fall and resulting injuries. After the close of discovery, Mr. Guldalian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the City arguing the wet grass and mud upon which the Plaintiff fell and injured herself was a byproduct of patrons going in and out of the water and walking to and from the area where they stored their belongings, was open and obvious, and did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. Citing to case law from the Florida Supreme Court which held that it is common knowledge that walks adjacent to, leading to, or surrounding a bathing area generally have water constantly thrown upon them and are in a slippery condition, as well as deposition testimony from the Plaintiff confirming she had been swimming at the spring for the past eighteen plus years and was “very familiar” with the park, the spring, and the area where she normally stored her belongings, Mr. Guldalian argued that some injury-causing conditions, like wet grass and mud surrounding a swimming area, are simply so open and so obvious that they cannot be held, as a matter of law, to give rise to liability as dangerous conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

March 31, 2014 — Michelle Coburn and Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLP
In Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the longstanding statutory employer doctrine and related five-part test of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co. In doing so, the court overruled the Superior Court and held that Worthington was immune from tort liability as the statutory employer of plaintiff Earl Patton. Worthington was the general contractor for a project to construct an addition to a church. Worthington subcontracted with Patton Construction, Inc. to perform carpentry work. Earl Patton was an employee and the sole owner of Patton Construction, Inc. He was injured in a scissor lift accident while performing work on the church. Patton sued Worthington alleging failure to maintain safe conditions at the worksite. After a trial, a jury awarded Patton and his wife a little more than $1.5 million in damages. Before trial, Worthington had moved for summary judgment arguing that it was Patton’s statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Under that law, general contractors are secondarily liable for payment of workers’ compensation benefits to employees of subcontractors. Like traditional employers, statutory employers are immune from tort liability for work-related injuries in situations where they are secondarily liable for workers’ compensation payments. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Coburn, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Ms. Coburn may be contacted at coburnm@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

December 31, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
A recent lawsuit filed in California over the proper documentation necessary for LEED certification (discussed in detail at the Green Building Law Update) emphasizes the fact that, no matter how detailed the LEED certification process seems to be, a mere reference to that process or a certain level of LEED certification is far from sufficient to assure a smooth project. While I don’t practice in California and don’t have any idea how the lawsuit will turn out, the fact that there is litigation over even the basics of LEED like documentation shows the clear necessity to make sure that your specifications and contract documents are specific and clear from the beginning. Owners, General Contractors and Subcontractors need to remember this fact at all times and particularly in situations where, like in the instance of LEED, the “specification” seems to be set out by others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

November 08, 2017 — Samantha M. Martino – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On October 4, the Second Circuit held that Harleysville Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify a project owner or general contractor as additional insureds under a sub-subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy due to lack of direct contractual privity. 1 The underlying claim arose when an employee of The Kimmell Company, Inc. (Kimmell) was injured while repairing an HVAC system at a building owned by the University of Rochester Medical Center (UR). The injured employee sought damages for his injuries and fi led suit against (1) UR; (2) LeChase Construction Corp. (LeChase), the general contractor for the project; and (3) J.T. Mauro Co. Inc. (Mauro), a subcontractor hired by LeChase. Mauro hired Kimmell as a sub-subcontractor to perform HVAC services at the project. The Mauro-Kimmel contract required Kimmel to add Mauro, UR, and LeChase as additional insureds under Kimmell’s CGL policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

October 18, 2021 — Steven A. Neeley - Construction Executive
In today’s world, there is a tendency to believe that everything must be preserved forever. The common belief is that documents, emails, text messages, etc. cannot be deleted because doing so may be viewed as spoliation (i.e., intentionally destroying relevant evidence). A party guilty of spoliation can be sanctioned, which can include an adverse inference that the lost information would have helped the other side. But that does not mean that contractors have to preserve every conceivable piece of information or data under all circumstances. There are key differences between routine document destruction (when done before receiving notice of potential claims or litigation) and spoliation. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision in Appeal of Sungjee Constr. Co., Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 62002 and 62170 (Mar. 23, 2021) provides a good reminder. There, Sungjee challenged its default termination under a construction contract at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Sungjee argued that the government denied it access to the site for 352 days (out of a 450-day performance period) by refusing to issue passes that were needed to access the base. The government argued that it had issued the passes, but it could not produce them to Sungjee in discovery because they had been destroyed as part of a routine document destruction policy. The base security force issued hard copy passes and entered the information in a biometric system. The government was able to produce the biometric system data but not the hard copy passes because they were destroyed each year. Sungjee argued the government was guilty of spoliation and moved for sanctions. It asked the Board to draw an adverse inference that the passes would have shown that the government had not issued proper passes on a timely basis, which delayed Sungjee’s performance. The Board denied Sungjee’s motion for several reasons. Reprinted courtesy of Steven A. Neeley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Neeley may be contacted at steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES