SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New York Court Enforces Construction Management Exclusion

March 14, 2018 — Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
In its recent decision in Houston Cas. Co. v. Cavan Corp. of NY, Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1138 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t Feb. 20, 2018), a New York appellate court had occasion to consider the application of a construction management exclusion in a general liability policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

---

Relief Bill's Highway Funds Could Help Construction Projects

January 04, 2021 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
Among the many provisions in the coronavirus relief bill, one key item is $10 billion to help state highway agencies make up for losses in state fuel taxes and other revenue due to the pandemic-caused falloff in traffic this year. Construction is one of a list of several eligible uses for the money—one of only a few construction funding provisions in the relief measure. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

May 27, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, in a development of interest to practically anyone who operates a plant or business, EPA published its Interpretive Statement in the Federal Register. (See 84 FR 16810 (April 23, 2019).) After considering the thousands of comments it received in response to a February 20, 2018, Federal Register notice, EPA has concluded that “the Clean Water Act (CWA) is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from a point source from NPDES program coverage, regardless of a hydrological connection between the groundwater and jurisdictional surface water.” Acknowledging that its past public statements have not been especially consistent or unambiguous on this important matter, EPA states that this interpretation “is the best, if not the only reading of the CWA, is more consistent with Congress’ intent than other interpretations of the Act, and best addresses the question of NPDES permit program applicability for pollutant releases to groundwater within the authority of the CWA.” Indeed, the absence of “a dedicated statement on the best reading of the CWA has generated confusion in the courts, and uncertainly for EPA regional offices and states implementing the NPDES program, regulated entities, and the public.” The recent and contrary interpretations of this issue by the Ninth Circuit (Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 886 F.3d 737) and the Fourth Circuit (Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, 887 F.3d 637) will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now have the benefit of the agency’s official position. In addition, EPA discloses that it will be soliciting additional public “input” on how it can best provide the regulated community with “further clarity and regulatory certainly”; these comments will be due within 45 days (June 7, 2019). 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

---

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

August 04, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the insurer had a duty to defend a construction defect case. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pulte Home Corp., 2015 Ill App. Unpub. LEXIS 1039 (Ill. Ct. App. May 15, 2015). Pulte Home Corporation was a developer who developed and constructed a residential condominium development known as The Reserve of Elgin (The Reserve). G.H. Siding was subcontracted by Pulte to work on the development, including the installation of exterior siding. The Reserve Homeowners Association (HOA) filed suit against Pulte and James Hardie Building Products Inc., the company that manufactured the exterior siding. The complaint alleged that Pulte developed, designed, constructed and sold the units and common areas. Pulte installed siding manufactured by Hardie on the exterior of the units. The siding was allegedly defective. The HOA alleged breach of implied warranty of habitability and breach of contract by Pulte. Hardie was sued for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warrant of habitability. 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

---

Another Setback for the New Staten Island Courthouse

January 13, 2014 — Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFF
The new Staten Island Courthouse received another setback when James McDonough filed suit stating unsafe work conditions, according to Frank Donnelly writing for Silive. The completion date for the new multistory, $230 million complex has been rescheduled four times so far. Fifty-eight year old James McDonough, resident of Ridgewood Queens, became injured after a fall down a shaft, and he subsequently “sued the city, state Dormitory Authority, the state Office of Court Administration and various contractors,” Donnelly reported. A total of ten defendants have been named in the suit. According to Silive, the Office of Court Administration, Dormitory Authority and the Law Department would not comment on the pending litigation further except to say that papers have been filed and the case is under review. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

March 28, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.



The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”



Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.



After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.



La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.



La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”



The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”



The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.



As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Breach of a Construction Contract & An Equitable Remedy?

September 22, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
In payment or collection-type lawsuits, the party suing for money sometimes asserts a claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit as an alternative equitable remedy to a breach of contract claim. Frankly, sometimes a party will do this as a means to throw everything against the wall hoping something, just something, sticks. However, if there is a contract by and between the parties, equitable claims such as unjust enrichment or quantum meruit will invariably fail. They will fail because a party cannot circumvent a contract simply because their recourse may prove better under an equitable theory. It doesn’t work like that! And, it should not! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

English v. RKK. . . The Saga Continues

December 16, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Remember back in 2018 when I thought I’d told you the end of the English Construction story regarding its various consultants, etc.? I was wrong. The matter went up on appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals where the Appeals Court considered the summary judgment granted to the defendant Rummel, Klepper & Kahl (“RKK”) based upon what came down to a contributory negligence reading of the indemnity clause that was allowed to survive in the first district court opinion relating to these ambiguous contracts finding that English was negligent so couldn’t recover. The 4th Circuit also considered the finding that defendant CDM Smith did not breach its contract as a matter of law and that English’s negligence was the cause of the damages. The Court of Appeals reversed both of the holdings by the Western District of Virginia court, essentially stating that there was enough of a factual dispute to render any summary judgment to be premature. As to English’s arguments regarding the indemnity scheme in the contracts, the court found that the interpretation was at least ambiguous enough that summary judgment was inappropriate, stating:

While we are not prepared to settle conclusively these interpretation disputes at the summary judgment stage, English’s proffered interpretation is, at the very least. reasonable. Indeed, of the two interpretations, English’s seems to be more closely aligned with the actual language in the contract. The district court thus erred in rejecting English’s interpretation and adopting RK&K’s interpretation as a matter of law.

[A]t bottom, while the district court was authorized to construe unambiguous language as a matter of law, it could not resolve genuine disputes regarding the meaning of ambiguous contractual language against the nonmoving party on summary judgment. We therefore vacate the court’s grant of summary judgment to RK&K and remand for further proceedings.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---