Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Governor Signs AB5 Into Law — Reshaping California's Independent Contractor Classification Landscape

December 02, 2019 — Eric C. Sohlgren & Matthew C. Lewis - Payne & Fears Legal Alert
Today, Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), controversial legislation which will have a substantial impact on California employers when it goes into effect on January 1, 2020. AB5 enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Under the ABC test established in Dynamex and now under AB5, a worker may be properly considered an independent contractor only if the hiring entity establishes all three of the following: (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. Reprinted courtesy of Eric C. Sohlgren, Payne & Fears and Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

August 27, 2013 — Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Having previously decided that construction defect claims did not arise from an occurrence and were consequently not covered under Hawaii law, the Hawaii Federal District Court refused to dismiss the insured's second amended counterclaim alleging various claims for relief. Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Nordic PCL Construc., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108932 (D. Haw. July 31, 2013). In earlier proceedings, the court determined that the Nordic's allegedly deficient performance on construction contracts was not an "occurrence." The court also rejected Nordic's argument that the Hawaii legislature's Act 83 required the court to deviate from the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 383 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004) or the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals' decision in Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010). Admiral now moved for summary judgment on its complaint and for dismissal of Nordic's second amended counterclaim, alleging bad faith and negligent misrepresentation, among other counts. Summary judgment as to the Safeway claim was denied. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

July 1, 2015 Statutory Changes Affecting Virginia Contractors and Subcontractors

June 10, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As always seems to be the case, this year, as in others, the Virginia General Assembly has seen fit to “tweak” a few construction related statutes. All of these changes will go into effect on July 1, 2015. The big one, and one that I posted about a while back is the change to the Virginia mechanic’s lien statute to prohibit contractual waiver of lien, payment bond or claims for additional costs prior to the furnishing of labor or materials. This one is big because it relieves a bit of the angst in the pre-contract negotiations between subcontractors and general contractors. Another significant change, this one to the wording of Virginia Code 2.2-4309, found in House Bill 1628, clarifies the fact that this Virginia statute does not limit the amount a government contractor may claim or recover against a public body under a contract dispute. This is a big one considering the ruling in the Carnell Construction Corp. v. Danville Redevelopment Housing Authority LLC limiting such claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

December 16, 2019 — Patricia B. Santelle & Ciaran B. Way - White and Williams LLP
On October 4, 2019 (almost two years after granting certification), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s rulings on four key coverage issues in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. The coverage dispute in Vanderbilt concerns underlying actions alleging that talc and silica mined and sold by the insured contained asbestos and/or caused asbestos-related disease. The case has been proceeding in phases, two of which have been tried to date, resulting in the matter on appeal. (1) “Continuous Trigger” Theory of Coverage Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s opinion applying a “continuous trigger” for the underlying claims at issue, and agreed that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger. (2) The “Unavailability of Insurance” Exception to Time-on-Risk Pro Rata Allocation Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s ruling that (a) damages and defense costs should not be allocated to any period in which insurance was “unavailable” in the market, (b) the insurers bear the burden of proving that coverage for asbestos liabilities was available to the policyholder after the date asbestos exclusions were added to the policies and (c) the insured bears the burden of proving that it was unable to obtain asbestos coverage prior to 1986 (when such insurance was generally available). The Appellate Court recognized that, in certain circumstances, there could be an “equitable exception” to the unavailability rule if the insured continued to manufacture products containing asbestos after 1986 with the knowledge that such products were hazardous and uninsurable (circumstances which the court found were not present in this case). Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Constructing a New American Dream

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Shelley D. Hutchins in Big Builder interviewed various architects and engineers to discuss the future of home design and building. Obtaining the American Dream “means having a place of sanctuary and security as well as shelter,” Hutchins wrote. “What that house looks like and how it functions is changing to accommodate different family make-ups, population and culture shifts toward denser more integrated communities, and increasingly extreme weather patterns.” Hutchins declared, “According to experts, educators, and experimenters in the residential design and construction industry many solutions for building houses for the future involve revisiting what worked before. Combining historic research with new innovations is what will produce the best housing.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Jersey Appellate Court Reinstates Asbestos Action

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, an asbestos case involving “a long-time ship worker who died of mesothelioma was reinstated by a New Jersey appellate court on March 3.” A lower court judge had “dismissed the claims against them based on his view that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was insufficient to show that the ships on which he worked contained asbestos and that he was exposed to it.” However, the appeals judges disagreed. “Although the summary judgment motion was decided on a very narrow ground, we conclude that the record as a whole establishes a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products on defendant’s dredges,” judges Susan Maven and Henry Carroll stated, according to the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

If a Defect Occurs During Construction, Is It an "Occurrence?"

February 12, 2024 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
Establishing insurance coverage for construction defects is almost as important as establishing liability in the underlying construction defect litigation itself. The risk to the defendant contractor of defending a construction claim can place significant burdens on a contractor’s operations and an uninsured judgment might even put the contractor out of business. For owners, suing a contractor for construction defects can become academic if there is no prospect of insurance coverage; obtaining a $1 million judgment against a contractor with limited assets would be a pyrrhic victory. Commercial General Liability (CGL) carriers are obligated to defend claims that potentially fall within the coverage granted by the policy.[1] When presented with a claim, CGL insurers typically have three options: (1) assume the defense without reservation; (2) assume the defense asserting defenses to coverage, and depending on the state, reserving the right to recover defense costs if it later determines there is no duty to defend; or (3) deny the claim outright and seek a declaratory judgment holding that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify. An insurer may deny the claim outright and not seek a declaratory judgment, but does so at its peril because it can expose the insurer to significant liability if the insured later shows the insurer in fact had a duty to defend. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bwitry@lauriebrennan.com

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

January 08, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We lawyers do a fair amount of reading. Documents. Court decisions. Passive aggressive correspondence from opposing counsel. As well as statutes, regulations and administrative guidance. And you might be surprised how often words can be ascribed very different meanings depending on who is reading it. Such, I suppose, is the nature of language. When it comes to public agency interpretations of its own regulations, however, you would be well to heed that authors are often the best interpreters of their own works, or at least that’s how the courts tend to view it, as in the next case L & S Framing Inc. v. California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, Case No. C096386 (July 24, 2023). The L & S Framing Case Martin Mariano, an employee of L & S Framing, Inc., suffered a brain injury when he fell from the “second floor” while working on a single family house. What, exactly, this “second floor” was, was a point of a contention in the legal case that followed. 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