Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

January 03, 2022 — David S. Harvey, Jr. & Sarah Hock - Lewis Brisbois
Tampa, Fla. (December 16, 2021) - As has been widely publicized, the Biden Administration has attempted to impose various forms of vaccine mandates under a variety laws and programs. At the same time, we have seen a flurry of opposition to these efforts ranging from new state laws (for example, in Florida) to court challenges seeking to enjoin the effort. One of the federal mandates was issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and is applicable to staff at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified healthcare providers. Initially, fourteen states sued in opposition to the CMS mandate and were able to obtain a nationwide injunction issued by a federal district judge in Louisiana. That injunction was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has now issued a decision that awards points to both sides. The Fifth Circuit ruled the injunction only applies to the 14 states that participated in the Louisiana lawsuit and not nationwide. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia. This opinion has the potential to revive the CMS vaccine mandate in just over half of U.S. states. We can anticipate new suits will be filed as to other states, with the outcome still uncertain. It is unknown at this point whether the United States Supreme Court will agree to review the issues when such review is sought in the near future. Reprinted courtesy of David S. Harvey, Jr., Lewis Brisbois and Sarah Hock, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Harvey may be contacted at David.Harvey@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Hock may be contacted at Sarah.Hock@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors

September 23, 2024 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Lithko Contr., LLC v. XL Ins. Am. Inc., No. 31, Sept. Term, 2023, 2024 Md. LEXIS 256, the Supreme Court of Maryland considered whether a tenant who contracted for the construction of a large warehouse facility waived its insurer’s rights to subrogation against subcontractors when it agreed to waive subrogation against the general contractor. The court ultimately decided that the unambiguous language of the subrogation waiver in the development agreement between the parties did not extend to subcontractors. The court also held that the tenant’s requirement that subcontracts include a subrogation waiver did not, in this case, impose a project-wide waiver on all parties. The court, however, found that the requirement that the subcontracts include a similar, but not identical, waiver provision rendered the subcontract’s waiver clauses ambiguous and remanded the case to the lower court to determine if the parties to the development agreement – i.e., Duke Baltimore LLC (“Duke”) and Amazon.com.dedc, LLC (“Amazon”) – intended that the waiver clause in the subcontracts covered claims against subcontractors. This case involved roof and structural damage to a warehouse in Baltimore, Maryland that Duke owned. In March 2014, Amazon entered into a development agreement with Duke for the construction of the warehouse. Amazon also agreed to subsequently lease the warehouse from Duke. Although Amazon essentially owned and/or developed the project, the development agreement identified Duke as “Landlord” and Amazon as “Tenant.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Ambiguity in Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose Finally Cleared up by Superior Court

October 17, 2023 — Mark L. Parisi - White and Williams LLP
In an unpublished opinion from the Pennsylvania Superior Court handed down on August 31, 2023, a long-standing disagreement about the wording of Pennsylvania's Statute of Repose was finally resolved. In Pennsylvania, “a civil action or proceeding brought against any person lawfully performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction or construction of any improvement to real property must be commenced within 12 years after completion of construction of such improvement” to recover most forms of damages that are sought in these kinds of cases. A statute of repose is different than a statute of limitations. A statute of repose is a hard line that does not shift. There is no discovery rule with a statute of repose. Most, if not all, states have statutes of repose for construction. The Pennsylvania statute of repose is among the longest in the country. It can be even longer – up to 14 years – if the injury (including property damage) or wrongful death “shall occur more than 10 and within 12 years after completion of construction.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Parisi may be contacted at parisim@whiteandwilliams.com

Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction

April 04, 2022 — Jonathan A. Cass, Nicholas F. Morello & John A. Greenhall - Construction Executive
Many contractors repeatedly make the same mistakes in negotiating contracts. Here are the most common mistakes contractors make—and how they can be avoided. 1. Not Being Careful With Force Majeure Clauses To protect themselves from liability in the event of unforeseen circumstances like fires, floods, wars, unusual delays in deliveries, strikes, pandemics or acts of God, contractors should ensure their contracts contain robust force majeure provisions. These provisions state that in the event of any extenuating circumstances outside of its control, the contractor is not liable for any damages that result from a delay to the project completion date and is entitled to a time extension. This clause has been critical in addressing COVID-19-related disruptions and the current material shortages. Contractors should be wary, however, of “no damage-for-delay” language, which often appears in conjunction with these clauses. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan A. Cass, Nicholas F. Morello and John A. Greenhall, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Cass may be contacted at jcass@cohenseglias.com Mr. Greenhall may be contacted at jgreenhall@cohenseglias.com Mr. Morello may be contacted at nmorello@cohenseglias.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Partners Patti Santelle and Gale White honored by as "Top Women in Law" The Legal Intelligencer

September 22, 2016 — White and Williams LLP
Managing Partner Patti Santelle and Partner Gale White were among the 25 women recognized by The Legal Intelligencer as "Top Women In Law" for 2016. The honor shines a light on the outstanding work being done by female attorneys across Pennsylvania who are making strides to push the legal profession forward for women. Honorees were selected by The Legal, with the help of suggestions from the legal community. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

EPA Threatens Cut in California's Federal Highway Funds

October 14, 2019 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
In a new salvo against the state of California, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has threatened to restrict uses for some federal highway aid to the state unless it moves to withdraw what EPA terms “backlogged and unapprovable" plans that outline steps the state would take to reduce pollution and meet Clean Air Act standards. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

San Francisco Sues Over Sinking Millennium Tower

November 17, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Dennis Herrera, San Francisco’s city attorney, filed a lawsuit against the developer of the Millennium Tower, “for failing to inform buyers that it was sinking ‘much faster than expected,’” reported the New York Times. Mission Street Development sold more than 400 units in the skyscraper. “They went ahead and sold condominiums for a handsome profit without telling the buyers about the situation,” Mr. Herrera told the New York Times. “This is every homeowner’s worst nightmare.” The spokesman for the development, P.J. Johnson, stated that “the allegations by the city attorney had ‘no merit,’ and that the “building had sunk within ‘predicted, safe ranges’ during the entire sales process,” according to the New York Times. Furthermore, Johnson asserted that the problem derived from the nearby railroad station removing water from the ground, which “had caused the building to ‘settle beyond the 12 inches it was predicted to settle.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Just Because You Allege There Was an Oral Contract Doesn’t Mean You’re Off the Hook for Attorneys’ Fees if you Lose

March 28, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
There’s certain things in life you shouldn’t mix. Like drinking and driving. Bleach and ammonia. Triple dog dares and frozen poles. And angry lawyers and litigation. In Spahn v. Richards, Case No. A159495 (November 30, 2021), angry lawyer Jeffrey Spahn sued general contractor Dan Richards claiming that Richards orally agreed to build Spahn’s million dollar plus house for $515,000. Not only did Spahn not recover anything from Richards, he ended up owing Richards $239,171 in attorney’s fees and costs, after he denied a request for admission asking that he admit that there was no oral contract. The Spahn Case In 2017, Spahn filed suit against Richards for breach of oral contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. According to Spahn, he met Richards in June 2015 and the two reached an agreement whereby Richards agreed to demolish Spahn’s house for $12,500 and build a new one for $515,000. Further according to Spahn, Richards agreed to this “fixed price” “oral contract” in June 2015, and then, on July 1, 2015, Richards “confirmed and agreed that he would perform the construction project” for $515,000 and would complete construction by May 2016. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES