SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

March 09, 2020 — Mark T. Caloyer & Joelle Nelson - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
On February 19, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a long awaited opinion in the matter of Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., No. 26 EAP 2018, No. 27 EAP 2018 (Pa. 2020). The Court’s opinion is a must-read for anyone involved in asbestos litigation in Pennsylvania. In Roverano, the Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 7102) does not preempt Pennsylvania common law favoring per capita apportionment of liability to strict liability defendants. In addition, the Court ruled that bankruptcy trusts, that are either joined as third-party defendants or that have entered into a release with the plaintiff, may be included on the verdict sheet for purposes of liability. In this case, Mr. Roverano sued 30 defendants in strict liability and Defendant Crane filed a joinder complaint against Johns-Manville Personal Injury Trust. The case proceeded to trial against eight defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. At trial, some of the defendants filed motions in limine seeking a ruling that the Fair Share Act applied to asbestos cases. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that asbestos exposure cannot be quantified, and held that that it would apportion liability on a per capita basis consistent with the Court’s opinion in Baker v. AC&S, 755 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2000). Reprinted courtesy of Mark T. Caloyer, Lewis Brisbois and Joelle Nelson, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Caloyer may be contacted at Mark.Caloyer@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Nelson may be contacted at Joelle.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Connecting Construction Project Information: Open Technology Databases Improve Project Communication, Collaboration and Visibility

March 14, 2018 — Andy Kayhanfar - InEight
The construction industry has been plagued for decades with projects coming in over budget and behind schedule. There are many reasons this happens, but it ultimately comes down to just one thing – a lack of connected information. Today, gigabytes and even terabytes of data are generated on a project and housed in different systems that do not talk or share information, which creates a closed approach and inhibits collaboration. Data is siloed and only accessible to certain companies, departments or disciplines, which gives each project stakeholder a very limited view into the status of the project as they are making decisions. To be successful, the construction industry needs to free project data from closed systems. There must be a way to give all project stakeholders access to accurate information within the context of how it applies to the overall project that will empower everyone from owners to engineers to contractors to make timely, fully informed decisions that bring projects in on time and within budget. INTRODUCING THE OPEN TECHNOLOGY DATABASE The need for deep visibility into project information across systems and stakeholders has given rise in the construction industry to the open technology database. This approach enables project stakeholders to link the data in their existing software systems and connect that information into one centralized location. Project stakeholders can continue to use and maintain the data in their own systems while still feeding the information to the shared environment, which brings together critical project details, provides context for decisions and makes it easier for all parties to collaborate. Project stakeholders are now able to connect business data related to estimating, cost control, scheduling, contracts, purchasing, accounting and more. This creates a common data set across the project that can be quickly accessed and can easily be put in the hands of project decision makers. Innovative companies are taking this connectivity to a new level. They see the potential to use 3D models beyond simply the design aspects of a project and bring them into the activities of construction. Innovators are taking all the project information available in the shared environment and connecting it to the 3D model to create a comprehensive view of the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andy Kayhanfar, Construction Executive, a Publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All Rights Reserved

---

California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

April 14, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Travelers Property Casualty Co. v. Centex Homes, No. C 10-02757 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2011), general contractor Centex was sued by homeowners for construction defects. Centex tendered its defense to Travelers as an additional insured under policies issued by Travelers to two Centex subcontractors. Travelers agreed to defend Centex under a reservation of rights and selected defense counsel to defend Centex. Centex refused to accept the defense, asserting that it was entitled to select defense counsel. Travelers filed suit against Centex seeking a declaratory judgment that Centex had breached the duty to cooperate condition in the Travelers’ policy.



Read the full story...



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

September 23, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste. The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

October 02, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce? You can even hold the service… or at least proof of it! In a dispute over the construction of a Burger King restaurant in Tupelo, Mississippi, a state court suit by the owner against its general contractor and architect was removed to federal court by one of the defendant parties, on the basis of the diversity of citizenship of the defendant parties from the plaintiff, per 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). For its part, plaintiff, upon achieving service of its state court complaint against the various defendants, filed a proof of service as to the party which sought to remove the case, but not as to the other defendants (even though the other defendants were served). Once the case was removed to federal court and after the deadline for removal has passed, plaintiff sought to have the matter remanded based on the lack of the consent of the entirety of the defendant group to the removal, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (“When a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

April 15, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In a NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index survey, builders were asked “Of the homes you started in 2014, approximately what share were on a site where a previous structure, or evidence of a previous structure, was present before you started?” According to the NAHB, the surveyors reported that “[o]n average, weighted by starts, […] just under five percent of their starts were teardowns according to the survey’s criterion.” When compared to census data, it equates to 31,800 single-family teardown starts in 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

September 17, 2018 — Neil McConomy - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
While the butt of many jokes and a thorn in the side of some property owners, homeowners associations (“HOAs”) serve the vital function of collecting and disbursing funds to care for and maintain common areas of residential developments. Without HOAs, neighborhood open spaces, parks, and other amenities risk falling into disrepair through a type of tragedy of the commons, wherein residents use such amenities but refuse to subsidize care and maintenance for these common areas believing someone else will pony-up the funds. HOAs, when properly organized and managed, avoid this problem by ensuring everyone pays their fair shares for the common areas. Colorado’s Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”), C.R.S. § 38-33.3-101 et seq., sets forth the manner in which such common-interest communities, and their related associations, must be established. Earlier this summer, the Colorado Supreme Court issued an opinion limiting the application of previous case law that allowed for the establishment of common-interest communities (and their related HOAs) by implication. See McMullin v. Hauer, 420 P.3d 271 (Colo. 2018). Prior to McMullin, Colorado courts had been increasing the number of factual scenarios implying the creation of common-interest communities under CCIOA. See e.g., Evergreen Highlands Assoc. v. West, 73 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2003) (finding an implied obligation of landowners to fund a pre-existing HOA’s obligations); DeJean v. Grosz, 412 P.3d 733 (Colo. App. 2015) (finding an implied right of a homeowner to found an HOA after the developer filed a declaration expressing an intent to form one but ultimately failed to do so); and Hiwan Homeowners Assoc. v. Knotts, 215 P.3d 1271 (Colo. App. 2009) (finding the existence of an HOA despite no common property existing within the development). The McMullin opinion highlights the importance of strict compliance with CCIOA to preserve common areas in a development, ensure the ability to fund maintenance of such areas, and avoid future litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Neil McConomy, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. McConomy may be contacted at nmcconomy@swlaw.com

---

Round and Round: Inside the Las Vegas Sphere

December 16, 2023 — Grace Calengor - Construction Executive
How does the typical contractor approach building something taller than the Statue of Liberty, wider than a football field and with the most square footage of LED lighting in the world? Perhaps it’s enough to say that Sphere Entertainment Company is not your average contractor—and Sphere in Las Vegas is not your average construction project. With a budget of approximately $2.3 billion, Sphere is a massive entertainment venue constructed mainly of steel and concrete. How different is that from the typical Vegas high-rise, casino or hotel? When you account for the structure’s sheer size, uncommon shape and intertwining technologies—very. Reprinted courtesy of Grace Calengor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---