SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

April 26, 2021 — Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Subcontractor claims happen. When those subcontractor claims are prompted by owner actions or responsibilities, the general contractor must always be vigilant to plan for and work to avoid a two-front war in which the general contractor is pushing the owner for recovery while at the same time disputing the subcontractor’s entitlement. Cooperation between the general contractor and the subcontractor and avoiding that two-front war can be accomplished through pass-through claims and ideally liquidating agreements. A pass-through claim is a claim by the subcontractor who has suffered damages by the owner with whom it has no contract, presented by the general contractor. A liquidating agreement or subcontract “liquidating language” goes a step further than simply a pass-through claim by “liquidating” the general contractor’s liability for the subcontractor’s claim and limiting the general contractor’s liability to the value recovered against the owner. The distinction between pass-through claims generally and use of liquidating agreements or language is described in greater detail below. Pass-through subcontractor claims are routine in construction and an important, common sense approach to deal with ever-present changes and the unexpected that can have cost and time implications. Despite the common sense basis for subcontractor pass-through claims, there are important legal considerations that must be addressed, and critical planning required, starting with the subcontract clauses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com

---

New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

May 16, 2022 — Michael S. Levine, Kevin V. Small & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
NL Industries recently prevailed against its commercial general liability insurers in the New York Appellate Division in a noteworthy case regarding the meaning of “expected or intended” injury and the meaning of “damages” in a liability insurance policy. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries, Inc., No. 2021-00241, 2022 WL 867910 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 24, 2022) (“NL Indus. II”), the Appellate Division held that exclusions for expected or intended injury required a finding that NL actually expected or intended the resulting harm; not merely have knowledge of an increased risk of harm. In addition, the court held that the funding of an abatement fund designed to prevent future harm amounted to “damages” in the context of a liability policy because the fund has a compensatory effect. NL Industries II is a reminder to insurers and policyholders alike that coverage is construed liberally and exclusions are construed narrowly towards maximizing coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion

September 25, 2018 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Woodrum v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 815 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), the Court of Appeals of Georgia considered whether the lower court properly disqualified a contractor as an expert witness and excluded the contractor from offering lay opinion testimony regarding the value of a property. The Court of Appeals held that, while the lower court properly disqualified the contractor as an expert witness, it improperly excluded the general contractor’s lay opinion testimony regarding the value of the property. This case establishes that, in Georgia, a lay witness can provide opinion testimony on the value of a property if the proponent of the testimony demonstrates that the witness had an opportunity to form a reasoned opinion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

November 30, 2017 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is extending again—this time, by two weeks—the compliance date for its rule requiring companies to file annual electronic reports of workplace injuries and illnesses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

---

Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

October 07, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to establish there was no coverage for construction defect claims and for bad faith. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. AAA Constr. LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115935 (W.D. Okla. July 12, 2019). Jeffrey and Tammy Shaver entered two contracts with AAA Construction for the construction of a garage and of a barn on their property. After construction was completed, the Shavers sued AAA Construction for building the garage over two high-pressure gas pipelines and the utility easements associated with them. They alleged AAA Construction was negligent for constructing over a working utility line. AAA Construction's insurer, Country Mutual Insurance Company (CMIC) denied coverage because the alleged faulty workmanship of AAA Construction did not constitute an "occurrence" under the policy. CMIC sued AAA Construction for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. CMIC moved for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Engineering.com looks at why the Harmon Tower in Las Vegas will be coming down at some point in the future. Construction stopped, unfinished in 2008. Taking the building down will cost about $400 million, which the building’s owner feels that the developer should pay. Inspectors concluded that the building did not meet the earthquake specifications for Las Vegas. The contractor claimed that the fault was due to the design specifications and that the supports were further weakened during destructive testing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

November 26, 2014 — Jerrold P. Anders & Tonya M. Harris – White and Williams LLP
In Krauss v. Trane US Inc., 2014 Pa. Super. 241, --- A.3d --- (October 22, 2014), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a witness affidavit does not create a genuine issue of fact to defeat summary judgment when it reflects only a presumption and belief that certain products contained asbestos. Moreover, when an affidavit fails to demonstrate plaintiff’s frequent, regular, and proximate exposure to a specific defendant’s asbestos-containing product, summary judgment will be granted. The Executor of the Estate of Henry M. Krauss filed two lawsuits against forty-nine defendants in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Krauss, a bricklayer from 1978 to 1983, was occupationally exposed to asbestos and developed mesothelioma. Various defendants moved for summary judgment based on insufficient product identification. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants because the co-worker affidavits failed to show that: (1) Mr. Krauss worked in proximity to the defendants’ products; (2) the products contained asbestos during the relevant period; or (3) Mr. Krauss inhaled asbestos fibers from the products. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold P. Anders, White and Williams LLP and Tonya M. Harris, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Harris may be contacted at harrist@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado’s Three-Bill Approach to Alleged Construction Defect Issues

May 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Denver Post, two Colorado construction defect bills have “made their way out of the Senate Affairs Committee Wednesday, with a third reportedly on its way.” The two bills that have made it out of committee are SB 219 and SB 216: “SB 219 would require the Colorado Division of Housing to prepare a study to present to legislators before March 15, 2015, on why there isn't more affordable housing construction in the state,” the Denver Post reported. “SB 216 directs the Colorado Division of Housing to design a program to rebate a portion of the insurance premiums builders pay as a way to boost their willingness to build more projects.” However, a third bill would require “homeowners to pursue arbitration or mediation before litigation.” All three bills are sponsored by Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, D-Commerce City. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---