SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

February 11, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Florida case discussing a contractual arbitration provision in a homebuilder’s contract discussed the difference between a narrow arbitration provision and a broad arbitration provision. See Vancore Construction, Inc. v. Osborn, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2769b (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Understanding the distinction between the two types of arbitration provisions is important, particularly if you are drafting and/or negotiating a contractual arbitration provision. A narrow contractual arbitration provision includes the verbiage “arises out of” the contract such that disputes arising out of the contract are subject to arbitration. Arbitration is required for those claims the have a direct relationship with the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in a Premises Liability Matter

November 05, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Newport Beach Partner Courtney Serrato and Associate Joseph Real on Prevailing on a Motion for Summary Judgment for their Client! Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and premises liability against BWB&O’s client, a general contractor of a multi-level construction project. Plaintiff was injured after a fall at the construction project and filed suit against BWB&O’s client and another subcontractor. Plaintiff alleged BWB&O’s client was negligent and was responsible for causing Plaintiff’s fall. BWB&O filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing under the Privette Doctrine and its progeny, it neither owed nor breached any duty to Plaintiff and that no exception to the doctrine applied. Under the Privette Doctrine, when a person or entity hires an independent contractor to provide work or services, and one of the contractor’s employees is injured on the job, the hirer is generally not liable to the employee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage

November 02, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
A broker who assisted the insureds in procuring a homeowners policy had no duty to advise the insureds to secure additional flood coverage. Ring v. Meeker Sharkey Assocs., LLC, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3458 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. Sept.26, 2017). The insureds owned two beachfront properties that were located in a designated flood zone. They secured homeowners and flood insurance through Meeker's predecessor. Subsequently, Meeker became the insureds' homeowners insurance broker while Willis, N.A. was their flood insurance broker. 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

---

Reduce Suicide Risk Among Employees in Remote Work Areas

November 24, 2019 — Sandra Moran - Construction Executive
In the construction industry, a disturbing and unnerving trend has been developing over the past few decades. Construction and resource extraction have the highest rate of deaths by suicide compared to any other industry. This phenomenon is not limited to a single country. The statistics from three developed countries with strong construction and resource extraction industries (United States, United Kingdom and Australia), reflect the same pattern. A major risk factor that has not been given much attention and scrutiny is the requirement for many workers to be away from their homes for long periods of time, based in remote locations and basecamps. This isolation contributes to loneliness and disconnectedness that increases the vulnerability to employees at risk due to underlying mental health disorders, such as depression and anxiety, or those with suicidal ideations or prior attempts. Basecamps or remote work locations remove workers from the support networks of family, friends, and even medical and psychological caregivers. Employers placing employees in remote work locations should be mindful that simply wanting to work in a remote location does not necessarily equate to being able to cope well in such an environment—unless appropriate supports are provided. Companies need to become proactive to lead employees to become true teams to help reduce the risk of suicide among their workers. Reprinted courtesy of Sandra Moran, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The MetroWest Daily News reports that a demolition firm was told to leave the construction site at Natick High School since their failure to have workers compensation insurance makes them unable to work on the project. The contractor, Atlantic Dismantling and Site Construction, Inc. may have been working illegally since September.

The equipment that Atlantic had rented for the job was repossessed in August. Brait Builders Corp, the general contractor for the site had rented equipment so Atlantic could continue their work.

Their lack of insurance was discovered when a worker had a minor job-related injury. The state had issued a stop-work order for the firm and they could not legally bid on public projects. The school system did not receive any notice of this, and the school’s facilities director said of the general contractor, “chances are Brait never heard of anything either.”

Read the full story...

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

BHA’s Next MCLE Seminar in San Diego on July 25th

July 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
There are just three weeks remaining to sign up for Bert L. Howe & Associate’s next California MCLE seminar, UNDERSTANDING CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION. This activity will be presented on Friday, July 25th at noon, in BHA’s San Diego offices, located at: 402 W. Broadway Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 There is no cost for attendance at this seminar and lunch will be provided. This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.0 credit hours, of which 0.0 credit hours will apply to legal ethics/professional responsibility credit. The seminar will be presented by Charlie Miller, general contractor and project manager. Water intrusion through doors, windows and roofing systems, as well as soil and foundation-related movement, and the resultant damage associated therewith, are the triggering effects for the vast majority of homeowner complaints today and serve as the basis for most residential construction defect litigation. The graphic and animation-supported workshop/lecture activity will focus on the residential construction process from site preparation through occupancy, an examination of associated damages most often encountered when investigating construction defect claims, and the inter-relationships between the developer, general contractor, sub trades and design professionals. Typical plaintiff homeowner/HOA expert allegations will be examined in connection with those building components most frequently associated with construction defect and claims litigation. The workshop will examine: • Typical construction materials, and terminology associated with residential construction • The installation process and sequencing of major construction elements, including interrelationship with other building assemblies • The parties (subcontractors) typically associated with major construction assemblies and components • An analysis of exposure/allocation to responsible parties. Attendance at THE UNDERSTANDING CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION seminar will provide the attendee with: • A greater understanding of the terms and conditions encountered when dealing with common construction defect issues • A greater understanding of contractual scopes of work encountered when reviewing construction contract documents • The ability to identify, both quickly and accurately, potentially responsible parties • An understanding of damages most often associated with construction defects, as well as a greater ability to identify conditions triggering coverage To register for the event, please email Charlie Miller at cmiller@berthowe.com. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Charlie at (800) 482-1822 (office) or (714) 353-1959 (cell). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Injury To Subcontractor's Employee

April 28, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Third Circuit reversed the district court and held that the additional insured was covered for injury to the subcontractor's employee despite an employee's exclusion in the policy. ArcelorMittal Plate, LLC v. Joule Technical Serv, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2905 (3d Cir. Feb. 18, 2014). ArcelorMittal Plate, LLC (AMP) owned a steel production facility. AMP contracted with Joule, an industrial staffing and engineering firm, for regular performance of maintenance and repair work at its plant. Joule was obligated to provide a CGL policy adding AMP as an additional insured "for all claims including, but not limited to, claims by Joule's employees." Joule added AMP as an additional insured to its policy with Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. The policy had an "employee exclusion" which stated, “This insurance does not apply to bodily injury to (1) an employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of (a) employment by the insured or (b) performing duties related to the conduct of the insured's business.” 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

---

Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

September 24, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Stairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so. A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station. Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed. The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].) The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256. Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP

---