Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

January 04, 2018 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
Originally Published by CDJ on March 22, 2017 The complex maneuver of lifting heavy prefabricated modules out of New York City's East River to build a university laboratory took careful planning and the work of one particular floating crane with a complicated past. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

May 20, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's claim for bad faith investigation regarding their hail damage claim did not survive the insurer's motion for summary judgment. Amarillo Hospitality Tenant, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56228 (N. D. Tex. April 29, 2015). A hailstorm caused damage to the Courtyard Marriot. The day after the storm, the insured inspected the roof of the hotel and observed damage to a sign and some aluminum vent tubes. No damage to the roof itself was observed. Subsequently, leaks were found on the tenth floor of the hotel. A public adjuster concluded that the roof had sustained damage during the hailstorm. The insured filed a claim with Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company. The insurer paid for the cost of repairing the damaged sign. To determine whether the damage to the roof was caused by the hailstorm, the insurer hired Donna Engineering, who conducted two inspections of the roof. Both inspections concluded that the hailstorm did not cause damage to the roof. Consequently, the claim was denied. 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

My Employees Could Have COVID-19. What Now?

March 23, 2020 — Amy R. Patton, Leila S. Narvid, Matthew C. Lewis, Robert Tadashi Matsuishi & Sarah J. Odia - Payne & Fears
Updated Guidance as of March 19, 2020. You are concerned about potentially sick employees in the workplace. One employee is off work sick for a couple of days, and then wants to return to work. Another plans to return to work after a week of travel. Another appears to be sick at work. They are coughing, sneezing, and appear to be short of breath. You are concerned they may have COVID-19. What can you do? You're not the only one concerned -- your other employees are, too. Your public-facing employees want to wear masks to protect themselves. One employee tells you he doesn’t want to touch anything that others in the office have touched. What are your obligations to these employees? Below, we address questions relating to keeping employees safe from COVID-19 in the workplace without violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or employee privacy laws. Can I require an employee returning from days away from work due to illness to report the symptoms the employee was experiencing that kept him/her out of work? Short answer: yes, so long as the questions are limited to whether the employee has had flu-like symptoms. Though the ADA prohibits asking employees questions related to an employee disability, COVID-19 (like the seasonal flu) likely does not rise to the level of a disability, so asking an employee about flu-like (or COVID-19-like) symptoms is unlikely to elicit information related to a disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that an employer may ask if an employee is experiencing flu-like symptoms if the employee reports being ill during a pandemic. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Leila S. Narvid, Matthew C. Lewis, Robert Tadashi Matsuishi and Sarah J. Odia Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Ms. Narvid may be contacted at ln@paynefears.com Mr. Matthew may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Mr. Robert may be contacted at rtm@paynefears.com Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

That’s not the way we’ve always done it! (Why you should update your office practices)

April 15, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
Anyone recognize the photo to the left [Photo of Pay Phone]? If you are of the Millennial generation, this is a quaint thing called a public pay phone. They used to be everywhere. Imagine, not having a cell phone to keep you in constant contact with Big Brother…………. [the good old days]. As you may be able to tell from the fact that the receiver is hanging down, this phone has seen better days. What does this have to do with construction? Everything. Just because something is done one way– even for years, or decades– doesn’t mean it should stay that way. Just as you learn new technical skills and change your designs, you should also update and modernize your office practices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

January 24, 2018 — Tred Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

Security First Insurance Company's endorsement restricting the ability of policyholders to assign post-loss benefits was struck down by the Florida District Court of Appeal. Security First Ins. Co. v. Florida Office of Ins. Regulation, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 18083 (Fla. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2017).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

February 23, 2017 — Adam P. Handfinger & Meredith N. Reynolds – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Yesterday, February 16, 2017, media outlets reported a nationwide strike by immigrants and businesses referred to as “A Day Without Immigrants”. The protest, organized largely through social media, was a response by some to the Trump Administration’s immigration and foreign trade policies. Participating businesses shut down and immigrants refused to work or spend money in an eff ort to demonstrate the role of foreign-born workers in the U.S. economy. While the number of businesses and individuals that participated is not yet known, several contractors reported labor shortages and construction project delays or temporary shut downs as a result of the protest. Reprinted courtesy of Adam P. Handfinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Meredith N. Reynolds, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Handfinger may be contacted at ahandfinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Reynolds may be contacted at mreynolds@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

April 22, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the Tenth Circuit found that exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 were ambiguous as applied to the facts of the case. MTI, Inc. v. Emplrs. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2543 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2019). Western Farmers Electrical Cooperative (WFEC) owned cooling towers which were serviced by MTI, Inc. Wausau provided a CGL policy to MTI. In 2011, MTI found that anchor bolts in Cooling Tower 1 were corroded. WFEC hired MTI to make repairs by installing new anchor castings with anchor bolts and anchor adhesive. On May 23, 2011, MTI employees removed all of the corroded anchor bolts in Tower 1. Because the adhesive applicator had not yet arrived, MTI did not immediately install new anchor bolts. On the night of May 24, strong winds struck the tower, causing it to lean and several structural components broke. Due to the extent of the structural damage, removal and replacement of the tower was determined to be the only viable option. 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

California Makes Big Changes to the Discovery Act

March 04, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Beginning January of 2024, California amended the Civil Discovery Act to mirror the Federal Rules and require that any party appearing in a civil action to provide initial disclosures to any other party demanding the same. In January of 2024, California amended the Civil Discovery Act, specifically C.C.P. section 2016.090, to affirmatively require that any party appearing in a civil action to provide initial disclosures to any other party demanding the same. In an effort to reflect the Federal Rule 26 disclosure requirements, as many other States have adopted, California will now also mandate (upon demand) that a party produce evidence without an arduous and possibly duplicative effort. In other words, this initial disclosure will require a party making initial disclosures of persons or records to additionally disclose persons or records that are relevant to the subject matter of the action and to disclose information and records regarding insurance policies or contracts that would make a person or insurance company liable to satisfy a judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES