SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

On-Site Supersensing and the Future of Construction Automation – Discussion with Aviad Almagor

September 06, 2021 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
For this episode of WDBE Talks, we sat down with Aviad Almagor of Trimble Ltd. to discuss sensor technology in the modern built environment. Our conversation touched on the on-site implementation of robotics and AI-based solutions, the importance of data capture, and the challenges facing the sector today and in the years ahead. Aviad Almagor is the Division Vice President of Emerging Technologies with Trimble Ltd., a California-based hardware, software, and tech company that specializes in the development of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) and recently collaborated with Boston Dynamics to automate construction processes. “AI in construction is a very exciting topic though the industry is traditionally not very well-equipped to adopt technology in a very effective way. AI is an enabling technology that can be used to support and augment work. This means we can automate processes; predict delays in schedule; cost changes; even design issues and prescribe and provide decision-makers with the right information to be efficient and to make the right choices for projects.” Aviad noted in our interview. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

January 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Austin, Texas has torn down a school gym, the Turner-Roberts Recreation Center at the Overton Elementary School, due to structural problems which became evident after the gym was completed four years ago. The cost of the new gym is $6.4 million, more than the cost of building the gym in the first place. The city is paying $3 million in repair costs with the rest of the money coming from the companies that designed and built the now demolished gym. According to the Austin Statesman, the total cost to the city will be about $8.6 million. The Turner-Roberts Recreation Center cost $5.6 million to build, but soon after it opened, structural problems were discovered. Cracks formed in walls and glass doors buckled. The settlement with the designer, contractor, and engineering firm did not require the firms to admit fault as they paid $3.4 million to fix the situation. The Statesman was unable to get a breakdown of how much each firm paid. Tom Cornelius, president of the GSC, the architectural firm on the project told the Statesman that "the foundation issues were not caused by design defects." Initially, the city sought to repair the gym, but early excavation determined that the defects were too extensive. In addition to the structural flaws, it was also determined that the HVAC system was faulty. Excavation also damaged plumbing work. Tearing down the gym turned out to be the most cost-effective response. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

White and Williams Elects Four Lawyers to Partnership, Promotes Six Associates to Counsel

January 13, 2017 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is pleased to announce the election of Edward Beitz, Justin Fortescue, Jennifer Santangelo and Amy Vulpio to the partnership and the promotion of Paul Briganti, Joshua Galante, Dana Spring Monzo, George Morrison, Craig O’Neill and Steven Urgo from associate to counsel. The newly elected partners and promoted counsel represent the wide array of practices that White and Williams offers its clients, including bankruptcy, corporate, finance, healthcare, insurance coverage, labor and employment, real estate and reinsurance. These lawyers have earned their elevations based on their contributions to the firm and their practices. “We are thrilled to elect these four lawyers to the partnership and promote six associates to counsel. These promotions are representative of the breadth of services and deep bench that we have to offer at White and Williams,” said Patti Santelle, Managing Partner. “The election of our new partners and promotion of our counsel is a reflection of their success and dedication as well as the continued health of the firm.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

April 13, 2020 — Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
As the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event. Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract. Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party. California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.) If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party. Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts. Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
Ms. Ward may be contacted at dward@bph-law.com

---

Jury's Verdict for Loss Caused by Collapse Overturned

September 18, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeal overturned the jury's verdict findng loss caused by collapse. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Caboverde, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 4474 (Fla. Ct. App. June 28, 2023). The insured homeowners had two claims. One was a 2016 ceiling collapse; the second was loss caused by Hurricane Irma in 2019. The homeowners' policy covered collapse defined as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building with the result that the building . . . cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." Collapse had to be caused by, among other things, decay or insect damage that was hidden from view. 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

---

Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

July 10, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The lower court correctly reformed the policy to replace the prior owner with the new owner as an additional insured under the policy. Wesco Ins. Co. v. Fulmont Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2650 (N. Y. App. Div. May 11, 2023). Beyond was sued as owner of the building in a personal injury lawsuit. The former owners leased the building to the tenant who included the then-owners as additional insureds under the tenant's policy. When the deed to the building was transferred to Beyond, the additional insured endorsement in the tenant's policy was not updated to reflect the change in ownership. Beyond's insurer, Wesco, tendered the lawsuit to the tenant's insurer, Fulmont. Coverage was denied because Beyond was not an additional insured under the tenant's policy. 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

---

White and Williams Ranked in Top Tiers of "Best Law Firms"

November 08, 2021 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams has achieved national recognition from U.S. News and World Report as a "Best Law Firm" in the practice areas of Insurance Law, Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Media Law. Our Boston, Delaware, New Jersey, New York City and Philadelphia offices have also been recognized in their respective metropolitan regions in several practice areas. National Tier 1 Insurance Law National Tier 2 Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law National Tier 3 Media Law Metropolitan Tier 1 Boston Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

January 05, 2017 — Masaki J. Yamada – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Washington Courts allow an insurer to determine its duty to defend an insured against a lawsuit based only on the face of the complaint and the limitations of the insurance policy. This is otherwise known as the “eight corners” rule (four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). In other words, the insurance company is not permitted to rely on facts extrinsic to the complaint in order to deny its duty to defend an insured. See Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 763 (2002). The laws in Washington provide greater protection to the insured over the insurer when it comes to the insurer’s duty to defend. The duty to defend a claim is triggered if a claim could “conceivably” be covered under the policy. See Woo v. Fireman’s Insurance, 161 Wn.2d 43 (2007). If there is any ambiguity in a policy with regard to coverage, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured. As a result, contractors in Washington regularly tender claims or potential claims to their insurers even when damage has not occurred but will occur in the imminent future. Especially in the context of construction defect cases, a contractor will tender such a claim to its insurer to trigger the broad duty of the insurer to provide a defense. We also regularly recommend this to our contractor clients. For example, if a building owner serves a contractor with a claim that the construction and installation of a window system will imminently cause leaks and corrosion, we would recommend that the contractor tender the claim to its commercial general liability insurer. Washington courts have found a duty to defend when there are allegations in the complaint that covered damages will occur in the imminent future. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

---