Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Morrison Bridge in Multnomah County, Oregon, has added a new company to their lawsuit regarding problems with the slip-resistant FRP decking, according to The Oregonian. The county has already named the installer, the supplier, and the manufacturer. Now, they have added Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, the company “that contracted with the decking manufacturer to provide engineering and design for the project.” The Oregonian reported that “the county has identified a construction design professional who can testify that Hardesty & Hanover made errors that contributed to the Morrison Bridge's damage,” according to the amended complaint. First, Conway construction (the deck installer) filed suit against the decking manufacturer and supplier. Then, the “county inserted itself into the suit last fall,” stated The Oregonian, and “is seeking more than $2 million to repair or replace the decking, plus damages.” A trial is scheduled for February 2015. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subsidence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Landslide

May 23, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the insurer who denied coverage based upon the policy's subsidence exclusion. Atain Spec. Ins. Co. v. JKT Associates, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6351 (9th Cir. March 11, 2022). JKT was hired by Lora Eichner Blanusa in 2011 to perform landscape and hardscape work at her house. After selling the house to Richard Meese, a catastrophic landslide occurred in 2019. Portions of the rear of the property slid downhill by 15 feet. Meese sued JKG and others. The owner of an adjacent property, Kristi Synek, filed a separate action against JKT and others. JKT tendered both suits to Atain, who defended under a reservation of rights. Atain filed a coverage action in federal district court regarding both underlying suits. The district court granted summary judgment to Atain, ruling there was no duty to defend or to indemnify. 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

English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

November 02, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters, Scott P. DeVries, Patrick M. McDermott & Jorge R. Aviles - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a decision that will influence how policyholders and insurers around the world address business-interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, the English High Court recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the “Test Case,” The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v. Arch et al. The High Court’s comprehensive analysis will likely serve as an additional tool in policyholders’ arsenal in the ongoing battles over COVID-19 coverage. The Panel, composed of two well-respected judges, one from the High Court (the UK’s trial court) and the other from the English Court of Appeal, analyzed 21 sample policy wordings in coverage extensions for business-interruption losses due to disease or the issuance of public authority orders. (Many of these wordings are also found in policies sold to US policyholders.) The High Court found that the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing government actions fell within the coverage provided by the sample policy wordings. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

October 22, 2014 — Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & Dillion
It has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements. Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts. Commercial Subcontracts Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to: (a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and (b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation. Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply. Residential Subcontracts The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work). Owner-Contractor Agreements The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence. Design Professional Agreements The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts. Conclusion In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions). California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable. Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nation’s Top Court Limits EPA's Authority in Clean Air Case

July 25, 2022 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions, but the ruling was more limited than some environmental advocates had feared. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The residents of Villa Lago at Renaissance Commons will be relieved of their problems with defective Chinese drywall, according to an announcement from their legal counsel, Whitfield Bryson & Mason. Gary E. Mason, a founding member of the firm, announced to homeowners that remediation would begin on November 1. “The project will start with about 30 units on the top floor and will continue floor by floor for the next 12 months.” Residents will be moved out of their units for about three months while all drywall is removed and replaced. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

24/7 Wall Street Reported on Eight Housing Markets at All-Time Highs

June 18, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
24/7 Wall St., using data from RealtyTrac, “identified the county-level housing markets that have recovered the most from the housing crisis as of March of this year.” Number eight on the list was Weld County, Colorado, which had a percentage change of 11.1% and an unemployment rate of only 6.5%. Next on the list, was San Francisco County. The California county had a percentage change of 15.3% and an unemployment rate of 5.2%. Making number one on the list was Jefferson County, Kentucky, with a percentage change of 63.1% and unemployment rate of 8.1%. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

May 30, 2018 — Vik Nagpal – Bremer Whyte Blog
To understand what Toxic Mold Litigation is, it is important to first identify and understand what toxic mold is. Mold is a fungus which is essentially everywhere, and certain types of mold, known as toxic mold, may cause severe personal injuries and/or property damage. Toxic mold refers to those molds capable of producing mycotoxins which are organic compounds capable of initiating a toxic response in vertebrates. Toxic mold generally occurs because of water intrusion, from sources such as plumbing problems, floods, or roof leaks. It is this ageless life form that has spawned a new species of toxic tort claims and has had legal and medical experts debating the complex health implications that follow. Here is some information as to what toxic mold litigation is and when you should hire a lawyer for toxic mold. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Vik Nagpal, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Mr. Nagpal may be contacted at vnagpal@bremerwhyte.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES