Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Last Call: Tokyo Iconic Okura Hotel Meets the Wrecking Ball

August 26, 2015 — Komaki Ito & Andreea Papuc – Bloomberg
Tokyo’s iconic nod to Japanese Modernism, the Hotel Okura, will bid farewell to its last guests next week and face the wrecking ball, despite petitions from around the world to save it. The 1960s-era hotel, which has welcomed international dignitaries and inspired a throng of admirers eager for preservation, will close its doors Aug. 31 to make way for a gleaming new hotel rebuilt in time for the 2020 Olympics, at a cost of about 100 billion yen ($836 million). “What’s odd about the Okura is that it’s a perfect embodiment of ‘60s Modernism, and it represents that very first wave of new development in the region,” Tyler Brule, editor in chief of Monocle magazine, who spearheaded a campaign that included a petition with almost 9,000 signatures, said in an e-mailed response to questions. “For this reason alone, it deserves to be preserved.” Reprinted courtesy of Komaki Ito, Bloomberg and Andreea Papuc, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Insurers’ Bid to Overturn a $400M Decision

January 25, 2021 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Andrews Kurth
New Jersey’s highest court heard arguments Monday in the appeal of a ruling that the New Jersey Transit Corp.’s (“NJ Transit”) insurers are required to insure $400 million of water damage loss caused by Hurricane Sandy. The matter stems from an insurance claim NJ Transit made after the super storm rocked the East Coast in 2012. NJ Transit claimed over $400 million in losses as a result of damage to its tracks, bridges, tunnels and power stations. In response, its tower of property insurers took the position that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to limit NJ Transit’s recovery under its insurance tower, not the policy’s $400 million overall limits.NJ Transit filed a coverage action in state court. The trial court granted summary judgment to NJ Transit, holding that NJ Transit was entitled to full coverage of $400 million under the tower’s named windstorm coverage. The insurers appealed, again arguing that the flood sublimit applied to the claim. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I

April 18, 2023 — Gregory D. Podolak & Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On March 24, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law House Bill 837 which significantly impacts several critical aspects of modern Florida civil litigation, particularly insurance disputes. SDV has actively monitored the evolution of this legislation, including substantial commentary from the legal and insurance communities that followed its enactment. In this multi-part series, we will explore the critical developments impacting policyholders and what to expect moving forward. The insurance-related headlines overwhelmingly concentrate on one key area: the elimination of one-way attorney fee recovery for property insurance policyholders. This development represents a key change in longstanding Florida insurance law and is worthy of attention - but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at GPodolak@sdvlaw.com Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Excess-Escape Other Insurance Provision Unenforceable to Avoid Defense Cost Contribution Despite Placement in Policy’s Coverage Grant

April 20, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co. (No. C072500; filed 4/11/16), a California appeals court found an “other insurance” provision unenforceable to excuse defense contribution between successive primary insurers, regardless of the fact that the limiting language was contained in the policy’s coverage grant. Certain Underwriters and Arch each insured Framecon over successive policy periods. Framecon was sued by a developer in a series of construction defect actions, and tendered to both insurers. Underwriters agreed to defend under a reservation of rights but Arch declined, citing the wording of its insuring agreement, which stated: Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Double-Breasted Dilemma

July 18, 2022 — Lauren E. Rankins & Saloni Shah - ConsensusDocs
What Is A Double-Breasted Operation? A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Rankins may be contacted at lrankins@watttieder.com

When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?

October 21, 2019 — Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP - ConsensusDocs
Conflict in a negotiation is to be expected and is arguably healthy for the process. Owners and contractors are constantly engaged in negotiations; whether it be negotiating changes to the work, changes to the schedule, or changes to the contractual terms. But at what point does taking a strong position in a negotiation cross the line and become coercion or bad faith? A recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals touched on this very issue. While this is a government contract case, the issues discussed in this case (namely negotiating a change) are routinely encountered in just about every construction project. This decision is instructive because it adds to a trending line of cases that limit an owner’s and contractor’s negotiation tactics. On August 5, 2019, the board issued an opinion in the appeal of Sand Point Services, LLC vs. NASA, ASBCA Nos. 6189. In Sand Point Services, the contractor was hired by the owner to repair the Wallops Flight Facility’s aircraft parking apron. During its work, the contractor hit a differing site condition, namely unsuitable soils. The contractor sought additional time and money for this differing site condition. The owner ultimately responded with a show cause letter to the contractor claiming, among other breaches, that the contractor was significantly behind schedule. This was generally viewed by all parties as the start of default proceedings against the contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP
Mr. Millan may be contacted at smillan@joneswalker.com

DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

December 16, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The U.S. Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia has recently issued two important rulings on the Clean Air Act in particular and administrative law in general: California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA and Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA. The Battle of the Memos: Seitz Makes Way for Wehrum In the California Communities case, decided on August 20, 2019, the court held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that a petition to review a change in EPA policy announced in an agency memorandum which reversed an agency policy announced nearly 25 years ago in another agency memo must be rejected because the memo at issue was not a “final agency action” subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 1995, the “Seitz Memo,” which interpreted Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and addresses the regulation and control of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, stated that once a source of toxic emissions is classified as “major,” the facility remains subject to regulation as a major source even if the facility makes changes to the facility to limit its potential to emit such toxics below the major source threshold. Then, in 2018 under a new administration, the “Wehrum Memorandum” was issued which reversed this policy and its interpretation of the law. (Both memos were issued without any kind of advance notice or opportunity to comment.) If a source takes steps to limit its potential to emit, then it may be regulated as an area source, and subject to less rigid regulation. The court majority held that the Wehrum Memo was not a final agency action and was not subject to judicial review when it was measured against both prongs of the “finality test” devised by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bennet v. Spear, 520 US 154 (1997) and US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016). While the memo undoubtedly represented the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process, the memo had no direct and appreciable legal consequences, and not therefore being a final action, the case must be dismissed. Judge Rogers filed a strong dissenting opinion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

The EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule: Are Contractors Aware of It?

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Remodeling Magazine reported recently that some remodelers are unaware of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule despite that it took effect back in April of 2010. “There are still quite a few remodelers who have never heard of RRP,” Mark Schlager, president of Access Training Services, an EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) trainer in Pennsauken, N.J. told Remodeling Magazine. According to the article, “The RRP rule applies to homes, apartments, and child-occupied commercial facilities built before 1978.” There are two RRP certifications required on every job: “a “Firm” certification for the company that contracts to do the work, and a “Renovator” certification for the person overseeing the work. A solo operator needs both certifications, which are good for five years.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES