SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

July 14, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Recently, I participated in a roundtable hosted by JAMS with experienced South Florida construction lawyers and retired circuit court judges to discuss the pros and cons of utilizing an initial decision maker (“IDM” and also referred to as a project neutral) or a dispute resolution board (“DRB”) to resolve disputes on construction projects. The IDM and DRB are designed to resolve disputes, specifically claims (whether for time, money, or both), during construction to keep the project progressing forward without being bogged down by the inevitable claim. There are numerous avenues to resolve disputes without resorting to filing a lawsuit or a demand for arbitration. The thought is that dispute resolution will be facilitated by techniques designed to assist the parties with the resolution of claims during construction. While direct discussions between the parties, meetings with the executives for business decision purposes, mediations, etc., are certainly helpful, sometimes these avenues are simply not enough to truly resolve a complex claim on a construction project that occurs during construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Reinventing the Building Envelope – Interview with Gordon A Geddes

September 01, 2016 — Aarni Heiskanen – AEC Business
In this interview with Gordon A Geddes, CEO of Lynx Systems, we talk about reinventing the building envelope. Gordon also gives great advice to innovators in the construction industry. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

---

Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?

June 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Despite a “no cracks” welding code and contract provision for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, in 2008 Caltrans proceeded with the project despite welding cracks created by the Chinese firm hired to build the roadway, according to the Sacramento Bee. By the time the cracks had been discovered, the costs were at $6.5 billion and climbing, and fixing the cracks would be time-consuming and expensive. However, there is some dispute as to rather the welding “cracks represent a hazard to the traveling public.” “Examine history,” Brian Maroney, Caltrans’ chief engineer for the bridge, said in a recent interview by the Sacramento Bee. “… Caltrans reviewed major quakes around the globe and never found a case in which weld cracks caused bridge-roadway fractures.” However, the Sacramento Bee reported that there was a case where welding cracks led to fractures. For instance, after the southern California earthquake in 1994 centered in Northridge, the Santa Clara River Bridge “suffered several fractures in steel girders. The breaks were traced to tiny cracks in welds, likely present before the quake, and worsened by vibrations of heavy trucks passing overhead. When the quake struck, the girders fractured.” The Santa Clara bridge did not collapse. Sacramento Bee claimed it remained standing because the I-beam-shaped girders were “not fracture-critical.” However, the Bay Bridge’s “roadway consists of box-girder segments welded together. In effect, they create one contiguous, fracture-critical girder,” Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, UC Berkeley engineering professor told the Sacramento Bee. “If welds crack and grow rapidly during a large quake, the entire roadway could fail.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Houston Bond Issue Jump-Starts 237 Flood Control Projects

September 10, 2018 — Louise Poirier & Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
More than $3 billion in flood risk reduction and repair projects can move forward in Houston following a vote held on Hurricane Harvey's anniversary that authorized a $2.5-billion bond program. Reprinted courtesy of Louise Poirier, ENR and Pam Radtke Russell, ENR Ms. Poirier may be contacted at poirierl@enr.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Supreme Court Building Opening Delayed Again

September 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
SI Live reported that the opening of the new state Supreme Court building in St. George, New York is delayed again due to problems with the air-conditioning and elevator systems. Delay, however, is not new to this project, which was originally expected to be completed over a decade ago. Initial delay was introduced “with the finding of remains from a 19th-century burial ground at the site, a former municipal parking lot, and more recently, with construction set-backs and other tie-ups,” according to SI Live. When completed, the new “building will boast 14 courtrooms, jury assembly, hearing and deliberation rooms, judges' chambers and court offices. There will also be holding cells for prisoners.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Scaffolding Collapse Kills Workers at China Construction Site

November 30, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The New York Post reported that a scaffolding collapsed in Beijing, China, “sending iron pipes, steel bars and wooden planks tumbling down on about 70 workers in the country’s worst work-safety accident in over two years.” Out of seventy workers, sixty-seven are reported to have died in the accident, while two are injuried, and one worker is missing. The cause of the accident is still under investigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds $400 Million Award for Superstorm Sandy Damages

February 22, 2021 — Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London,1 New Jersey’s highest court upheld an appellate decision2 finding that New Jersey Transit Corporation (“NJT”) was entitled to full coverage under its property insurance policy for damages caused by Superstorm Sandy. In July 2012, NJT secured a multi-layered “all risks” property insurance program from eleven insurers for the policy period of July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2013. The policies covered all perils and damage to NJT’s property unless specifically excluded. The primary layer, issued by Lexington Insurance Company, provided the first $50 million of coverage. The second layer provided coverage up to $100 million, the third layer provided an additional $175 million, and the fourth layer provided coverage of $125 million, for a total of $400 million in coverage. The excess layer insurers included Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Torus Specialty Insurance Company, and several other carriers. All participating insurers’ policies included a standard policy form and separate endorsements, some of which were included in all policies and some of which were unique to specific insurers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kkane@sdvlaw.com

---

Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

February 05, 2024 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Strategist
In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 18 EAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 1715 (Dec. 22, 2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) clarified that in light of its decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 628 Pa. 296 (2014), evidence that a product complied with industry standards is inadmissible in an action involving strict product liability. In Tincher, the Supreme Court overruled prior case law and reaffirmed that Pennsylvania is a Second Restatement Jurisdiction. As stated in Sullivan, discussing Tincher, under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, a “seller of a product has a duty to provide a product that is free from ‘a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or [the consumer’s] property.’ To prove breach of this duty, a ‘plaintiff must prove that a seller (manufacturer or distributor) placed on the market a product in a “defective condition.”” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

---