Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

New OSHA Vaccination Requirements For Employers With 100 Or More Employees (And Additional Advice for California Employers)

November 19, 2021 — Laura Fleming & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
Update 11.8.21: On Nov. 6, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the OSHA ETS, stating that the OSHA ETS may have “grave statutory and constitutional issues.” The stay is not a final ruling on the validity of the ETS but temporarily halts its implementation nationwide. OSHA has until Nov. 8, 2021 at 5:00 PM to respond and the petitioners have until Nov. 9, 2021 at 5:00 PM to reply to OSHA’s response. The Fifth Circuit will then issue its ruling likely late this week or early next week. On Sept. 9, 2021, President Joe Biden announced his COVID-19 Action Plan. The Action Plan called on the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) to develop a rule requiring all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work. On Nov. 4, 2021, OSHA released the rule in the form of an Emergency Temporary Standards (“OSHA ETS”). Here are ten things you need to know about the OSHA ETS:

How To Count To 100: (1) The applicable number is the total number of employees employed on November 5, 2021—this is the headcount that will be used for the duration of the OSHA ETS. (2) The count must be done at the employer level not the individual location level. (3) Part-time employees do count towards the total number of employees. (4) Employees who work from home do count towards the total number of employees. (5) Independent contractors do not count towards the total number of employee.

Reprinted courtesy of Laura Fleming, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Fleming may be contacted at lf@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Long Road to Change: Understanding Resistance to Innovation

February 03, 2025 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
If you read this newsletter, you probably plan or have tried implementing new technologies in your or your customer’s organization, whether successfully or unsuccessfully. I’ve been there, and it’s not easy or fast. Sometimes, it takes three, five, or ten years for the momentum for a positive and rational change to emerge. Persistence and patience are needed, but those qualities are rare today. While preparing a podcast interview about implementing AI in construction companies, I discovered a research article by professors Antti Ainamo and Antti Peltokorpi titled Innovation Meets Institutions: AI and the Finnish Construction Ecosystem. The article uses cognitive science and psychology research to explain the resistance to implementing AI in construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

March 28, 2018 — Jeffrey J. Vita and Thersa A. Guertin – SDV Blog
In a recent victory in their home state of Connecticut, Saxe Doernberger & Vita partners, Jeffrey Vita and Theresa Guertin, representing owner-developer 777 Main Street, LLC, overcame a summary judgment motion filed by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The Connecticut Superior court refused to adopt the insurer’s broad interpretation of the “faulty workmanship” exclusion in an all-risk builders’ risk insurance policy. In 2014, 777 Main Street, LLC began renovations on the 27-story former Hartford National Bank building in downtown Hartford, converting the property from an office building to a mixed residential and commercial space. During the renovation, a subcontractor hired to perform the cleaning the concrete façade of the building accidentally over-sprayed the cleaning material onto the property’s windows. The subcontractor’s attempts to clean the overspray further damaged the structural integrity and cosmetic look of the windows. As a result, the owner was forced to replace over 1,800 windows, costing millions. Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

ETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing Market

April 08, 2014 — Corinne Gretler – Bloomberg
Build it and they will come, if it’s not too chilly. Traders have turned bullish on a security that tracks home construction companies, appliance makers and furniture retailers as spring finally ends the harsh winter. As the SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF (XHB) heads for its first weekly gain since February, investors are buying options betting that the rebound will keep going. The cost of bullish contracts has risen to the highest versus bearish ones in 2 ½ years. The ETF has gained 2.2 percent this week. The exchange-traded fund of companies such as Ryland Group Inc., Whirlpool Corp. and Home Depot Inc. has rebounded 8 percent after reaching its lowest level this year on Feb. 3 as investors attribute weakness in the housing market to winter weather. Between December and February, snow covered 1.42 million square miles of the continental U.S., the 10th-largest snow cover in records going back to 1966, according to the National Climatic Data Center. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Corinne Gretler, Bloomberg
Ms. Gretler may be contacted at cgretler1@bloomberg.net

Ninth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Construction Defects Under California Law

April 05, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit, applying California law, affirmed the district court's decision finding there was no coverage for construction defects. Archer W. Contractors v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3796 (9th Cir. March 2, 2017). Archer Western Contractors (AWC) was the general contractor for the San Diego County Water Authority's emergency water storage project. The pump house and turbine generators suffered property damage. The damage flowed from AWC's allegedly defective work on the property. After settling a construction defect lawsuit brought against it by the Water Authority, AWC filed this case against National Union for failing to indemnity portions of the settlement agreement. 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

Is a Violation of a COVID-19 Order the Basis For Civil Liability?

April 20, 2020 — Robert Devine, James Burger & Douglas Weck - White and Williams
Thinking about ignoring your state or local COVID-19 shutdown orders? Think again. Social-distance measures may create a new source of liability for businesses operating during the COVID-19 pandemic. Infection-based litigation is normally limited to businesses operating in the healthcare sector. But, social-distancing measures to stop the spread of infection may expand that litigation to other sectors. State and local governments across the country are taking extraordinary measures to combat the spread of COVID-19, a novel coronavirus that can cause life-threatening respiratory illness. Those measures encourage and even mandate “social distance” between people to limit physical transmission of the virus. Hard-hit states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California have been aggressive in their responses, shuttering businesses, confining people to their homes, and requiring people to stay six feet apart. Common mandates include: quarantines, business and school closures, stay-home orders, curfews, travel restrictions, occupancy limits and physical-distance mandates, among other things. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, James Burger and Douglas Weck Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

August 17, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

January 02, 2024 — Joel P. Williams - White and Williams LLP
The Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion in a case construing an American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Company, LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, et al. 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 720 (Oct. 30, 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a performance bond surety was discharged from liability where the owner/obligee failed to give the surety notice of the contractor’s default termination until after a third party had completed the work. The project concerned the construction of an assisted living facility in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The owner, Wildewood Operating Company, LLC, entered into an A312-2010 performance bond with Clark Turner Construction, LLC, as contractor, and First Indemnity of America Insurance Company, as surety. When Clark Turner failed to complete certain stormwater management work adjacent to the site, Wildewood, Clark Turner, and other parties entered into a Work Agreement to address completion of the work. The surety was not a party to the Work Agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joel P. Williams, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Williams may be contacted at williamsj@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES