SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

July 10, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome Vickie Lane. Vickie is the primary point of contact for Business Development with HAZMAT Plans & Programs, a consulting and training firm that also works under the name of HP&P Safety. Vickie’s functions with HP&P include extensive pre-project research and support though estimating, planning and cost administration. Vickie attended Ohio State University and now enjoys her role as a first time grandmother and spending free time up in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Vickie can be reached at vlane@hppsafety.com or on Twitter @HAZMATPlans and @hpandpsafety. Most of us perceive hazards on a construction site to be those that can be readily visualized or perhaps easily imagined, like trench cave-ins or falls from heights. These are the obvious, but what about the nocuous, microscopic hazards that can’t be seen by the human eye, but can destroy the health of your workers? Welcome to the world of hazardous materials. The inherent danger associated with hazardous substances is workers might not be not aware of exposure. Think of a snake in the dark scenario. If it is a rattlesnake, you have warning before the bite. A cobra on the other hand gives no such warning and the bite can be fatal. So it can be with hazardous and toxic substances. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

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

---

Rather Than Limit Decision to "That Particular Part" of Developer's Policy Necessary to Bar Coverage, 10th Circuit Renders Questionable Decision on Exclusion j(6)

September 06, 2021 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Colorado law, recently extended Colorado’s broad application of the phrase “arising out of” in insurance interpretation, barring an insured real estate developer from receiving a defense to a suit alleging liability for construction of a defective retaining wall and associated resulting damage.1 The decision also included a questionable analysis of the commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy’s exclusion j(6), contradicting both the plain meaning of the exclusion as well as existing 10th Circuit case law. The underlying dispute concerned a land developer, HT Services, LLC, who was sued by the homeowner’s association (“HOA”) of one of its developments. The HOA alleged that HT Services negligently designed and constructed a retaining wall in the community. HT Services had CGL policies from Western Heritage Insurance Company in place from 2010 to 2013 that insured it for liability associated with four acres of land that the community was built upon. HT Services tendered the HOA’s lawsuit to Western Heritage, which declined to defend and indemnify HT Services. After that matter settled, HT Services sued Western Heritage, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Western Heritage moved for summary judgment, asserting two exclusions, and the District Court granted the motion in Western Heritage’s favor. In upholding the District Court’s decision, the 10th Circuit discussed two exclusions that the District Court determined precluded coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

---

Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Los Angeles and Orange Counties are first on a list no area wants to be on. According to the Sacramento Bee, reporting on data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, LA and Orange Counties saw an $8 billion drop in construction wages in 2010, as compared to 2006. In 2006, the region saw payrolls of $26.8 billion, but in 2010, that was reduced to $18.5 billion.



This was not the largest percentage change. Of the metropolitan areas with the largest declines in construction earnings, Las Vegas saw a $3.6 billion drop, however that represented half of their 2006 totals of $7.2 billion. Conversely, a $3.3 billion drop in the New York area represented only 10% of what had been $33.8 billion in payroll in 2006.

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

July 13, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Although the insurer paid for some of the mold damage at the insured’s home, the Fifth Circuit eventually determined the homeowner’s policy did not cover such damage. Rooters v. State Farm Lloyds, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12306 (5th Cir. June 15, 2011).



The policy excluded loss caused by hail to personal property unless the direct force of wind or hail made an opening in the roof allowing rain to enter. Further, the policy excluded loss caused by mold or other fungi.



In 1999, hail and rain caused water damage to the roof and interior of the residence. State Farm paid $19,000 to repair the roof. Another $1,800 was paid for repairs to the interior of the building. In 2002, the insured noticed black mold. State Farm issued an additional check for $4,402 for mold abatement.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

February 05, 2015 — Robert Caplan and Timothy Carroll – White and Williams LLP
Pennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8] Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP and Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

March 16, 2017 — Paul R. Cressman, Jr.
King County Superior Court issued sanctions of $1,641,721 in favor of Gefco and against Cascade Drilling, Inc. and its President, Bruce Niermeyer, composed of $1,394,435 in attorneys’ fees and $247,286 in expert fees. [i] Cascade Drilling is a contractor. Gefco manufactures and sells large drilling machinery. The dispute centered around a project that began in 2008. Cascade was hired to drill a water well at a housing development in Wheeler Canyon, California. Cascade used a 50K drilling rig purchased from Gefco. The pump drive shafts on the drilling rig failed four times. After each failure, Cascade ordered a replacement pump drive shaft from Gefco. In September 2008, Cascade ordered drilling equipment for an unrelated drilling rig from Gefco, but did not pay Gefco. Gefco then sued to collect. Cascade admitted not paying, but asserted counterclaims alleging that Gefco was indebted to Cascade for non-conforming and defective goods, including the replacement pump drive shafts purchased from Gefco for the Wheeler Canyon project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ah-lawyers.com

---

Insurers Get “Floored” by Court of Appeals Regarding the Presumptive Measure of Damages in Consent Judgments

May 13, 2014 — Mark Scheer and Brent Williams-Ruth – Scheer & Zehnder LLP
CASE: Miller v. Kenny, 68594-5-I, 2014 WL 1672946 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2014). Snapshot Synopsis: $21 million bad faith consent judgment verdict upheld. $4.15 million underlying stipulated consent judgment was the “floor,” and additional damages allowed. ISSUES: 1. Can a jury award damages for an insurer’s bad faith in excess of the amount of the stipulated covenant judgment? YES 2. Can a trial court admit evidence of insurance liability reserves in a bad faith action? YES 3. *Note: Other evidentiary and procedural issues were addressed by the court in its decision but not analyzed in this summary* FACTS: This appeal arose out of an automobile accident on August 23, 2000. Patrick Kenny was driving a 1994 Volkswagen Passat owned by one of the passengers, when he rear-ended a cement truck. The accident severely injured his three passengers: Ryan Miller, Ashley Bethards, and Cassandra Peterson. Kenny was covered for liability under the insurance policy issued to Peterson's parents by Safeco Insurance Company. Safeco defended Kenny without a reservation of rights. Reprinted courtesy of Mark Scheer, Scheer & Zehnder LLP and Brent Williams-Ruth, Scheer & Zehnder LLP Mr. Scheer may be contacted at mscheer@scheerlaw.com; Mr. Williams-Ruth may be contacted at bwilliamsruth@scheerlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---