SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

June 10, 2019 — Sean M. Mosman & Mark O. Morris - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction
The Utah Supreme Court recently decided Baker v. Carlson, 2018 UT 59, which considered a developer’s ongoing effort to build a mixed-use, part-residential and part-commercial development on the site of the long-defunct Cottonwood Mall located in Holladay, Utah. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the Third District Court’s ruling that a voter referendum to block the development was valid. This ruling calls into question the certainty of investment-backed real estate decisions in Utah and thus could carry negative implications for the Utah construction and real estate development communities. The Cottonwood Mall opened in the early 1960s, and for several decades was a popular regional shopping destination. But the mall fell on financial hard times in the mid-1990s, and since 2007 the 57-acre lot has sat vacant. Around that time, the owner of the lot made plans to redevelop it, and asked Holladay City to rezone the site to permit mixed uses. In response, the City rezoned the lot as Regional/Mixed-Use (R/M-U). The City also created a process to control the development of an R/M-U zone, requiring prospective builders to first submit a site development master plan—which sets forth guidelines for the overall development and design of the site—to the City for approval. After the City approves a master plan, the developer must enter into a development agreement with the City, giving the developer certain rights and addressing other development-related issues. Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Mosman, Snell & Wilmer and Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Mosman may be contacted at smosman@swlaw.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

November 23, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventh Circuit found there was no duty to defend the contractor additional insured for the costs of repairing and replacing roofing installed incorrectly by the subcontractor insured. Core Constr. Servs. Southeast v. Crum & Forster Spec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17575 (11th Cir. Sept 28, 2016). After the condominium project was completed, Hurricane Wilma damaged several roofs in the development. The association and its insurer, Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, discovered that the roof had been installed incorrectly by Patnode Roofing, Inc. Empire paid for the damages and the association assigned its claims against Core Construction and its subcontractors, including Patnode, to Empire. Empire then sued Core Construction, Patnode and other subcontractors. 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

---

Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

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

Although the Nevada Supreme Court adopted the efficient proximate cause doctrine, it determined it did not apply to salvage coverage under an all-risk policy for a rain-damaged building. Fourth Street Place, LLC v. The Travelers Indemn. Co., 2011 Nev LEXIS 114 (Nev. Dec. 29, 2011).



Fourth Street owned an office building which was insured by an all-risk policy issued by Travelers. Fourth Street hired Above It All Roofing to repair the roof of the office building. Above It All removed the waterproof membrane on the roof and prepared to replace the membrane the following week. Over the weekend, however, substantial rain hit. On Sunday, Above It All returned to cover the exposed portions of the roof with tarps, but wind later blew the tarps away. The building suffered significant interior damage as it continued to be exposed to the rain.

Read the full story…

  

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

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

---

Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

February 01, 2021 — Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A South Florida restaurant has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal district court’s ruling that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. In the underlying coverage action, the policyholder, Mama Jo’s (operating as Berries in the Grove), sought coverage under its all-risk policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, the case will be closely watched by insurers and policyholders alike as an indicator of the scope of coverage available under all-risk policies and whether the principles pertinent to construction dust and debris (at issue in Mama Jo’s claim) have any application to the thousands of pending claims for COVID-19-related business interruption losses pending in the state and federal court systems. As previously discussed on this blog, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from Florida precedent on the issue of “direct physical loss” and even its own understanding of that term as described in the August 18, 2020 decision now at issue before the Supreme Court. Mama Jo’s points to this in its petition along with several other errors arguing, for example, that the appellate court’s ruling renders entire areas of coverage nonexistent by requiring “tangible destruction” of property under all-risk policies that expressly afford coverage for types of clean-up costs required to remove debris from covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Back to Basics: What is a Changes Clause?

July 18, 2018 — J. Cole Phillips – Smith Currie
The Changes Clause is one of the most important, perhaps the most important, provision in any construction contract. Project designs are rarely perfect. A Changes Clause provides a mechanism for dealing with such imperfections as well as allowing project owners the flexibility to update a project’s design as the project progresses. A good Changes Clause specifies when an owner can change the original scope of the contract, how the parties should resolve the value of the changed scope and when payment should be made to the contractor or a credit given to the owner. A good Changes Clause will also provide a mechanism for the contractor to notify the owner when it believes a change order is due and specify the time within which such notice must be given. For the contractor, failure to pay attention to the requirements of the Changes Clause can lead to forfeiture of the right to seek an adjustment to the contract value or contract completion date. For an Owner, failure to pay attention to and enforce the requirements of the Changes Clause can result in unnecessary payments to the Contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of J. Cole Phillips, Smith Currie
Mr. Phillips may be contacted at jcphillips@smithcurrie.com

---

Contractor Prevails in Part Against CalOSHA in Valley Fever Case

February 26, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Fever. Specifically, Valley fever. Caused by the fungus Coccidioides. It lives in the top two to 12 inches of soil, can become airborne when the soil is exposed, and can cause respiratory illness and even death. And apparently, it is present in many parts of California particularly in the Central Valley and along the coast. Who knew? In Granite Construction Company v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, Case No. C086704 (2023), contractor Granite Construction was cited by CalOSHA for exposing its employees to Coccidioides at a large solar power plant known as California Flats Solar Project in Monterey California. The 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in part. It should be noted that this case originally unpublished, it was then published, and then later depublished, so it should not be relied on for precedential value. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Puerto Rico Grid Restoration Plagued by Historic Problems, New Challenges

November 08, 2017 — Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
While the federal government is helping to restore power to Puerto Rico as fast as it can, that work is being made more difficult due to the dilapidated, pre-Hurricane Maria state of the grid and because long-term, post-disaster power restoration is typically not the federal government's mission. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

---

U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

November 09, 2020 — Andres Avila & Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
On September 15, 2020, in a matter entitled The Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch & Others1, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, the equivalent of a trial court in the U.S., issued a ruling on a COVID-19 business interruption insurance case (the “Judgment”). Significantly, the Court sided with policyholders on most key coverage issues under specific non-damage business interruption insurance coverage forms. U.S. policyholders should review whether any of their policies issued by U.K.-based carriers, which may be subject to English law and have the forms discussed below, are impacted by this favorable decision. The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the U.K. financial regulatory body, brought the case to establish liability under 21 lead representative sample policy wordings from eight insurer defendants. The case was filed on an expedited basis on June 9, 2020 under the Financial Market Test Case Scheme, which is used for claims of general importance that require authoritative court guidance. Although the Judgment is legally binding only on the carriers who were parties to the action, the FCA estimates the case could affect 700 types of policies across 60 different insurers, and 370,000 small to medium-sized enterprises policyholders (“SME”) in the U.K. While the Judgment may be appealed, it is expected to incentivize insurers to settle their claims before the outcome of an appeal is known. Reprinted courtesy of Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Avila may be contacted at AAvila@sdvlaw.com Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---