Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

February 05, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, the commercial real estate market poses a risk to financial stability, New York City moves towards net-zero building emissions, workers at several Los Angeles area hotels tentatively agree to a new contract, and more!

For the first time since Fannie Mae’s monthly consumer survey was launched in 2010, more homeowners overall believe rates will go down rather than up. (Diana Olick, CNBC)
According to U.S. regulators, the commercial real estate market is potentially a leading risk to financial stability in 2024, noting rising vacancy rates, declining values of office properties, high interest rates and the possibility of an economic slowdown. (Jim Tyson, CFO Dive)
New York City will soon begin penalizing owners of buildings that emit too much greenhouse gas — a move toward requiring net-zero building emissions by 2050. (Jennifer Kingson, Axios)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

March 09, 2020 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In ABK, LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2019 WL 7046393 (Idaho Dec. 23, 2019) an insured gas station owner sued its property insurance carrier for breach of contract and bad faith after the carrier denied coverage for loss caused by water contamination of the insured’s underground storage tanks. Mid-Century had denied coverage because the underground storage tanks were damaged by water -- which was an excluded peril under the policy. Mid-Century issued Business Owners Special Property Coverage to the insured which provided all-risk coverage for physical loss or damage. The policy contained a number of exclusionary provisions including a water exclusion which provided that the policy did not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by:

Flood, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow or any body of water, or their spray, all whether driven by wind or not; ...
Water under the ground surface pressing on, or flowing or seeping through:

Foundations, walls, floors or paved surfaces:
Basements, whether paved or not; or
Doors, windows or other openings.

In upholding the District Court’s ruling in favor of Mid-Century, the Idaho Supreme Court held that a clear reading of the unambiguous policy provides damage caused by surface water or water under the ground when flowing or seeping through other openings is excluded from coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

What Construction Firm Employers Should Do Right Now to Minimize Legal Risk of Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuits

October 07, 2024 — Anthony LaPlaca, Dawn Solowey, Andrew Scroggins & Adrienne Lee
Seyfarth Synopsis: In June 2024, Seyfarth published a blog article warning construction industry employers of recent anti-harassment guidelines issued by the EEOC. We predicted that the EEOC has “put the construction industry squarely in its sights.”[1] In this follow-up Alert, we discuss recent cases confirming the renewed regulatory focus on the construction sector, which demonstrate the need to put in place sound practices for non-discriminatory recruitment, hiring, and training of the work force in order to be prepared for this heightened risk of government scrutiny. Recent EEOC Settlements The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has indicated, in no uncertain terms, that over the next five years it intends to prioritize the mitigation of systemic workplace problems and the historical underrepresentation of women and workers of color in the construction sector.[2] Two recent cases confirm that the EEOC is true to its word when it comes to tackling racial and gender disparities in the construction work force. In August 2024, the EEOC secured two consent decrees with two separate construction firms in Florida, totaling nearly $3 million. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth, Dawn Solowey, Seyfarth, Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth and Adrienne Lee, Seyfarth Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Ms. Solowey may be contacted at dsolowey@seyfarth.com Mr. Scroggins may be contacted at ascroggins@seyfarth.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at aclee@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

January 11, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy. In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts: In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity

July 26, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Construction contracts oftentimes and should contain conditions precedent to payment. Conditions precedent apply to both progress payments and final payment. The conditions precedent operate such that payment is NOT due until the conditions are satisfied. The satisfaction of the conditions precedent triggers the payor’s obligation to pay. If a dispute arises due to the payee’s noncompliance with conditions precedent to payment, the noncompliance should be asserted with particularity in the answer and affirmative defenses. For example, if a subcontractor was required to provide lien waivers and releases as a condition precedent to payment, then this should be asserted with particularity as an affirmative defense. If the contractor’s receipt of payment from the owner was a condition precedent to payment to the subcontractor (pay-when-paid), then this should be asserted with particularity as an affirmative defense. Any noncompliance with a condition precedent should be identified as an affirmative defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project

May 20, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) would like to congratulate the winners of the BHA Has a Nice Swing golf game for charity at the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. With the help of the participants, BHA was able to raise $1925 to benefit the Wounded Warrior Project. BHA would also like to congratulate the raffle winners. Prizes included a DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ Drone and Dodger baseball tickets. The Wounded Warrior Project’s purpose is to raise awareness and enlist the public’s aid for the needs of injured service members; to help injured service members aid and assist each other; and to provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of injured service members. Learn more about the Wounded Warrior Project... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

September 30, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Konrad R. Krebs - White and Williams LLP
The standard for an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy has been addressed on several occasions by Pennsylvania courts when an insured has allegedly performed faulty workmanship on a construction project. Specifically, in Pennsylvania, a claim for damages arising from an insured’s performance of faulty workmanship pursuant to a construction contract, where the only damage is to property supplied by the insured or worked on by the insured, does not constitute an “occurrence” under the standard commercial general liability insurance policy definition. But what about the circumstance when the insured has failed to perform contractual duties where the claim is for property damage to property not supplied by the insured or unrelated to the service the insured contracted to provide? The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed this question in Pennsylvania Manufacturers Indemnity Co. v. Pottstown Industrial Complex LP, No. 3489 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. 223, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 729* (Pa. Super. 2019). Pottstown Industrial Complex arose out of an underlying dispute between a landlord and a commercial tenant who had leased space to store its product inventory. The tenant alleged that the landlord was responsible under the lease for keeping the roof “in serviceable condition in repair.” Notwithstanding this responsibility, the tenant alleged that the landlord failed to properly maintain and repair the roof, resulting in leaks and flooding during four separate rainstorms, destroying over $700,000 in inventory. The tenant specifically alleged that the floods were caused by poor caulking of the roof, gaps and separations in the roofing membrane, undersized drain openings, and accumulated debris and clogged drains. The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination that there was no coverage under a commercial general liability policy issued to the landlord. Following a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court entered an order in favor of the insurer, holding that allegations of inadequate roof repairs were claims for faulty workmanship and were not covered under Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006) and Millers Capital Insurance Co. v. Gambone Brothers Development Co., 941 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 2007). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Konrad Krebs, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Duty to Defend Requires Payments Under Policy's Supplemental Payments Provision

February 16, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal determined there was no duty to indemnify and the insured had to reimburse the insurer's contribution to a settlement. Nevertheless, there was a duty to defend, meaning the insured did not have to reimburse amounts it was entitled to under the supplemental payments provision. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Constr., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1132 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2016). Moorefield was the general contractor for a shopping center project to be developed by DBO Development No. 28 (DBO). The project included the construction of a 30,055-square-foot building to by used as a Best Buy store. In January 2002, DBO entered a 15-year lease with Best Buy. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES