Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

November 28, 2018 — Tom Ichniowski – Engineering News-Record
The National Transportation Safety Board has issued urgent safety recommendations in the wake of September’s natural-gas explosions and fires in the Merrimack Valley area of Massachusetts that killed one person and resulted in at least 21 others, including two firefighters, going to the hospital. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

April 01, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty and R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In BNSF Railway Company v. Superior Court (Kralovetz) (Filed 3/27/2015, No. B260798), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held a Delaware railroad corporation, with its principal place of business in Texas, was not subject to “general” personal jurisdiction in California, despite California housing 8.1% of the corporation’s total workforce, accounting for 6% of the corporation’s revenue, and containing just under 5% of its total track mileage. Plaintiff, Vicki Kralovetz, filed suit in California Superior Court against defendant, BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”), and others, for wrongful death. Plaintiff contended her husband was exposed to asbestos products manufactured by BNSF in Kansas while working at a dismantling facility owned by BNSF’s predecessor in interest. Plaintiff claimed the exposure caused her husband to contract mesothelioma, which resulted in his death. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at mmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hold on Just One Second: Texas Clarifies Starting Point for Negligence Statute of Limitations

July 11, 2022 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In construction or similar ongoing projects, problems often pop up. Sometimes they can pop up again and again. Making things even more complicated, one problem may affect another, seemingly new problem. When these construction problems result in property damage, timelines tend to overlap and determining when a statute of limitation begins to run for a particular claim can be difficult. Especially in states with short statute of limitations for tort claims like Texas, knowing when a statute begins to run is crucial for a subrogation professional. In Hussion St. Bldgs., LLC v. TRW Eng’rs, Inc., No. 14-20-00641-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2193, 2022 WL 1010313, the Court of Appeals of Texas provided clarity on when the two-year statute of limitations for tort claims begins to run. Reversing the judgment from the lower court, the appellate court denied summary judgment to the defendant, holding that, despite there being existing issues with the ongoing construction project, the negligence cause of action for Hussion Street Buildings, LLC (Hussion) did not begin to run more than two years prior to filing suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

August 06, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case contains valuable analysis that has impact on whether a “successor” entity will be bound by a settlement agreement it was not a direct party to. This case contains arguments for contractors that can be raised in a number of different contexts if it is sued by a successor or related entity. The same case discusses the difference between releasing a party for “known” claims without releasing the same party for “unknown” claims. This is an important distinction because unknown claims refer to latent defects so a release that only releases a party for known claims is not releasing that party for latent defects. In MBlock Investors, LLC v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1432d (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), an owner hired a contractor to construct a project. At completion, the owner transferred the project to an affiliated entity (collectively, the “Owner”). The contractor sued the Owner for unpaid work, the Owner claimed construction defects with the work, and a settlement was entered into that released the contractor for KNOWN claims. Thereafter, the Owner defaulted on the construction loan and agreed to convey the property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to an entity created by the lender (the “Lender Entity”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

January 02, 2024 — Keith Sparks - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Oregon law mandates a broad duty to defend, requiring insurers to provide legal representation to their policyholders whenever there is a potential for coverage under the policy. The significance of this broad interpretation means that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured even in situations where the alleged facts only imply a covered claim, and even in situations where the underlying claim is ultimately not covered by the policy. The insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the allegations of the complaint, reasonably interpreted, could result in the insured being held liable for damages covered by the policy. This is referred to as the “four-corners” rule; it is also sometimes referred to as the eight-corners rule (for the four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). Oregon’s adoption of a broad interpretation of the duty to defend affirmatively places the onus on insurers to err on the side of coverage. This broad duty to defend is based on the principle that an insured should not have to bear the expense of defending a lawsuit that the insurer may ultimately have to pay for. The duty to defend is also important because it helps ensure that insureds have access to legal representation when faced with a lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Keith Sparks, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Sparks may be contacted at keith.sparks@acslawyers.com

No Subrogation, Contribution Rights for Carrier Defending Construction Defect Claim

December 23, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Court held that the insurer defending the additional insured general contractor had no right to equitable subrogation or equitable contribution from a separate carrier who also insured the general contractor as an additional insured. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170293 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2023). Tanger Grand Rapids, LLC hired Rockford Construction Company to build the Tanger Outlet Center. Rockford subcontracted with Kamminga & Roodvoeis, Inc. (K&R) to work on the pavement for the outlet mall. Under the subcontract, K&R agreed to maintain primary commercial general liability insurance for itself, with Rockford as an additionial insured. K&R obtained a policy from Amerisure. For additional paving work, Rockford subcontracted with Michigan Paving & Materials, CP. The subcontract also required Michigan Paving to maintain primary coverage, with Rockford as an additional insured. Michigan Paving obtained a policy from Liberty Mutual. 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

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

Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues

June 01, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s like the rematch between Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed. In the right corner we have the California Taxpayers Action Network. In the left corner, Taber Construction, Inc. The title in contention: Construction of California’s Lease-Leaseback Program and, specifically, whether a construction firm can provide both pre-construction services as well as perform construction or, whether doing so, would be an impermissible conflict of interest under the Lease-Leaseback Law. In their first appellate court match, California Taxpayers Action Network argued that a lease-leaseback arrangement between Taber Construction and the Mount Diablo Unified School District, whereby the District agreed to lease the site to Taber Construction one dollar (which is permissible) and to pay Taber a “guaranteed project cost” of $14,743,395 comprised of “tenant improvement payments” totaling $13,269,057 prior to the District taking delivery of the project (which was the issue in dispute) and six “lease payment amount[s]” of $345,723 plus interest paid in 30-day intervals, violated the Lease-Leaseback Law because the bulk of the payments by the District to Taber Construction occurred during construction rather than during the lease-term which could only “truly” occur after the District took delivery of the project. The 1st District Court of Appeal sided with Taber Construction, and in doing so created an appellate court split with the 5th District Court of Appeal’s decision in Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, 237 Cal.App.4th 261 (2015), which held that contractor who received all payments prior to turnover of the project to the district violated the Lease-Leaseback Law. 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