Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

September 17, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Perhaps in anticipation of Labor Day, the National Labor Relations Board issued its ruling in Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, establishing an easier standard for unions to prove that a joint employer relationship exists. This will make it easier for unions to make the upstream company, like a parent company, liable for unfair labor practices, even if the upstream company had no direct involvement. Some Background BFI runs a recycling plant and contracts with Leadpoint to provide workers to sort garbage in the recycling plant. The staffing agreement specifically stated that Leadpoint was the sole employer of the personnel it supplied and Leadpoint handled supervision of the employees, not BFI. Leadpoint’s employees sought to unionize and an election was held. The union filed a petition seeking a determination that Leadpoint and BFI were a joint employers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements

February 03, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
With increasing frequency in the construction defect cases we defend, we are seeing commercial general liability insurance policies with “subcontractor warranty” endorsements. Also known as contractor or subcontractor special conditions, these endorsements could have severe and negative consequences for builders that do not comply with their requirements. In researching for this article, I reviewed six different endorsements used by six different carriers, all of which contained some or all of the following requirements:

The builder must have signed subcontract agreements with its subcontractors that require subcontractors to hold harmless, i.e., defend and indemnify, the builder for “bodily injury” or “property damage” claims caused by their negligence.
The subcontractors must maintain their own insurance with limits equal to or greater than the limits in the builder’s own policy, with limits of at least $1 million per occurrence.
The subcontractors’ insurance must not exclude the work being performed for the builder, e.g., the excavator’s policy cannot exclude earth movement claims, the subcontractor’s policy cannot exclude residential construction.
The subcontractors must maintain their own workers’ compensation and/or employer’s liability insurance.
The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that the builder has been added to the subcontractors’ insurance as an additional insured.
The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that their insurance carriers have agreed to provide waivers of subrogation in favor of the builder.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office

May 08, 2023 — Alexander R. Moore - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that Alexander R. Moore, Esq., has been promoted to Managing Partner of our Oakland office. Mr. Moore has been at Kahana Feld since 2021 and is a member of the construction defect and general liability practice groups. Mr. Moore has over 23 years of experience representing individual and commercial clients in complex disputes arising out of construction contracts, construction defect allegations, premises liability matters, landlord-tenant disputes, and contractual disputes arising out of various business relationships involving financial services companies, technology companies, telecommunications companies, real estate brokerages, non-profits, and a range of small businesses. When not focused on litigation, Mr. Moore enjoys consulting on transactional matters including the development of construction and business contracts. He has extensive experience evaluating rights and obligations under construction contracts and related insurance programs. He also assists clients in the implementation of pre-litigation risk management strategies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alexander R. Moore, Kahana Feld
Mr. Moore may be contacted at amoore@kahanafeld.com

Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

January 05, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
On October 27, 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals determined whether the Dormancy Statute, which bars the enforcement of judgments after seven years, applied to a lienholder’s action to foreclose its lien. A property owner (“Owner”), contracted with a contractor Contractor (“Contractor”) to build a home in January 2006. Contractor purchased building materials from a supplier (“Supplier”). In September 2006, Contractor failed to pay for the materials, and Supplier filed a lien on Owner’s property in November 2006. Supplier filed a claim of lien and instituted a lien action against Contractor. In March 2007, a default judgment was entered in favor of Supplier for the lien amount. It was not until November 2014 that Supplier sued Owner, seeking a declaration of a special lien in the amount of $14,655.65. The trial court granted Supplier’s motion for summary judgment and awarded Supplier a special lien in the amount of $14,655.65 plus $8,305 in accrued interest. Owner appealed, arguing that the lien was rendered unenforceable by the Dormancy Statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

How to Defend Stucco Allegations

February 07, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Managing partner Paul McBride discusses how to defend stucco defect allegations in his article in Kring & Chung, LLP’s online publication. According to McBride, about “80% of construction defect lawsuits which [Kring & Chung] defend involve stucco-clad houses.” In the article, McBride addresses “improper building paper installation and stucco cracks.” “If you are defending the stucco subcontractor,” McBride advises to look “first, at the windows section of the plaintiffs’ defect report and cost of repair estimate.” He explains that “this is the section where the plaintiffs’ expert will allege water intrusion that will be allocation to your stucco subcontractor.” McBride declares that the “most important thing to understand about stucco cracks is that stucco cracking is common. This is both a common sense observation and a perfectly valid legal defense.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Automated Weather Insurance Could Offer Help in an Increasingly Hot World

July 10, 2023 — Michelle Ma - Bloomberg
Carlos José Báez experienced the full brunt of Hurricane Maria when it made landfall in Puerto Rico as a catastrophic storm in 2017. The auto paint shop owner, who lives in Aguas Buenas, Puerto Rico, saw his home badly damaged by Maria’s ferocious winds and rain. Despite submitting claims to his homeowner’s insurance policy for over $25,000, Báez ultimately received a payout of $11,000. “We had a lot of property damage and insurance, but they didn’t want to pay,” Báez said in an interview in Spanish. More than $1.6 billion in insurance claims remained unresolved more than two years after Maria while others were denied completely. The latter happened to Jonathan González’s mother, who waited nearly a year for an adjuster to come take photos of water damage and a broken wheelchair ramp only for the claim to be denied six months later. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Ma, Bloomberg

Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

July 13, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown. An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:

In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.

U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).

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

Florida Court of Appeals Holds Underlying Tort Case Must Resolve Before Third-Party Spoliation Action Can Be Litigated

December 04, 2018 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 43 Fla. L. Weekly 2225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2018), the Third District Court of Appeals of Florida addressed whether a third-party spoliation claim should be litigated and tried at the same time as the plaintiff’s underlying tort case. The court held that since the third-party spoliation claim did not accrue until the underlying claim was resolved, the spoliation cause of action could not proceed until the plaintiff resolved his underlying claim. The underlying matter in Amerisure involved a personal injury claim by plaintiff Lazaro Rodriguez. While working as an employee for BV Oil, Inc. (BV), Mr. Rodriguez was knocked from the top of a gasoline tanker he was fueling at a gasoline storage warehouse owned by Cosme Investment (Cosme). Mr. Rodriguez filed a personal injury lawsuit against Cosme. He also collected worker’s compensation benefits from Amerisure Insurance Company (Amerisure), BV’s worker’s compensation carrier, while his lawsuit was pending. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White & Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES