Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The owner of a regional water treatment plant in California has filed a lawsuit against the where they operate. Construction defects lead to cost overruns at the Modesto Irrigation District’s water treatment plant. Now the question is whether MID or Modesto will be paying for the expenses. Both parties sued Black & Veatch and others, receiving $14.9 million. But the problems have lead to the cost of the water treatment plant expansion ballooning to $107.5 million, a big jump over the planned $62.9 million. Also, instead of being completed in 2009, the completion date has been pushed to 2015. Modesto originally agreed to pay for the expansion, which will increase plant’s ability to provide drinking water to 66 million gallons per day with the agreement that MID would provide the water at the cost of producing it. But now the cost to Modesto of those additional 36 million gallons a day is an additional $44.6 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defects #10 On DBJ’s Top News Stories of 2015

December 10, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Denver Business Journal’s top 15 news stories of 2015 covers the “Battle Over Construction Defects.” Some developers and other groups have blamed the lack of condominium development in Denver and other Colorado cities on the state’s defect laws. After a construction-defects reform bill failed to pass the Colorado Legislature, several cities passed construction defect-related ordinances, according to the Denver Business Journal: “In November the Denver City Council voted 12-1 to approve an ordinance aimed at making it harder to file class-action lawsuits over construction defects within the city.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Sink Hole Loss

June 18, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found there was no coverage under the commercial property policy for loss suffered by the insured condominium association due to a sink hole. Bahama Bay II Condo. Ass'n. v. Untied Nat'l Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67487 (M.D. Fla. April 11, 2019). The plaintiff condominium association had thirteen buildings inside their complex. On December 9, 2016, a sinkhole appeared near Building 43. The building was vacated and declared unsafe. Plaintiff's board excused Building 43 owners from paying association dues. Plaintiff submitted a claim to the insurer for benefits under the policy. The insurer inspected and accepted coverage for Building 43 under the policy's Catastrophic Ground Cover Collapse (CGCC) provision and issued a check for $290,000 for immediate repairs. The insurer denied coverage for Buildings 42, 44, and 45; repairs to the foundation of all buildings, the retaining wall and outdoor fences; land, landscaping, and patios, uncollected association dues, and condominium unit owner property. 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

Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

July 20, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.

The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.

Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.

After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.

The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”

Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”

The court concluded:

Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Court Denies Insured's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking to Compel Appraisal

March 13, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insured's motion to dismiss after the insurer filed suit to compel an appraisal. Allied Trust Ins. Co. v. Tsang, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 352 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2023). The insureds reported damage to their property arising from Hurricane Ida. The insurer, Allied Trust, investigated and determined that the covered damage was $1,978.18, which was less that the policy's deductible. The insureds estimated that the covered damage was $135,270.78. Allied Trust invoked the appraisal provision. Allied Trust later filed suit alleging the insureds failed to comply and participate in the appraisal. The insureds moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. In their motion, the insureds argued that because they were now complying with the appraisal clause, all relief sought by Allied Trust had either already occurred or was currently underway. 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

NYC-N.J. Gateway Rail-Tunnel Work May Start in 2023

March 28, 2022 — Elise Young - Bloomberg
The $12.3 billion Gateway rail tunnel linking New York City and New Jersey has reached a major preconstruction milestone with the completion of geotechnical studies necessary for the engineering phase. The analysis of rock and silt from 75 earth samples on both sides of the Hudson River marks the latest in a series of swift leaps toward a potential 2023 start date. The project had been delayed years by former President Donald Trump, who had argued that costs should be covered solely by the states, not U.S. taxpayers. The samples, from depths of 48 feet to 505 feet (14.6 meters to 154 meters), will guide design, according to the Gateway Development Commission, the project’s overseer. Some areas of particular interest to the researchers were on Manhattan’s West Side, parts of which were underwater before landfill was added many years ago. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elise Young, Bloomberg

Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

May 10, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Coverage for damages resulting from faulty workmanship in the construction of an apartment complex was at issue in The Bartram, LLC v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44535 (N.D. Fla. March 30, 2012).

The owner of the apartments, Bartram, had primary coverage and three layers of excess coverage. Each contract excluded loss from faulty workmanship. The policies provided, however, "if loss or damage by a Covered Cause of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss or damage."

Bartram contended water intrusion occurred because of faulty workmanship, which caused damage to the buildings’ exterior and interior finishes, wood sheathing, framing, balcony systems, drywall ceilings and stucco walls. This damage was separate from the work needed to simply fix the faulty workmanship. Therefore, Bartram argued, the ensuing losses that resulted from the water intrusion was covered.

The insurer argued the ensuing loss exception was not applicable if the ensuing loss was directly related to the original excluded loss.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com