Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

City of Seattle Temporarily Shuts Down Public Works to Enforce Health and Safety Plans

April 13, 2020 — Masaki J. Yamada - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Blog
The Governor’s Stay Home, Stay Safe Order mandates that essential businesses must establish and implement social distancing and sanitation measures established by OSHA and the WA State DOH:

OSHA and the OSHA Guidelines for Employers;
Washington State DOH (referring to the CDC guidance).

With construction work continuing on essential construction projects, some jurisdictions, such as the City of Seattle, are taking additional steps to enforce and oversee the establishment and implementation of updated Health and Safety plans on construction projects. The City of Seattle’s Mayor Jenny Durkan announced yesterday a two-day temporary suspension of Public Works construction beginning on Thursday, April 9th, to conduct health and safety training for workers and update protocols. The announcement may be viewed here. The City of Seattle also sent a letter in this regard and asked all contractors and owners provide project-specific responses to the Washington Building Trades COVID-19 Construction Industry Emergency Requirements. Herein are the links to the letter and attached requirements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Yamada may be contacted at masaki.yamada@acslawyers.com

Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued

October 20, 2016 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Over the past few years, there has been a battle raging on in district courts and arbitration hearing rooms throughout Colorado regarding when a subcontractor’s work is to be deemed “substantially complete,” for purposes of triggering Colorado’s six-year statute of repose. C.R.S. § 13-80-104 states, in pertinent part:

Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section. * * * (2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.

C.R.S. § 13-80-104 (emphasis added). As the battle raged on at the trial court level, subcontractors and design professionals argued that their work should be deemed “substantially complete” when they finished their discrete scope of work within a project. Developers and general contractors, seeking to maintain third-party claims against the subcontractors and design professionals, typically argued either that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work should be deemed “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy on the project, or upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor or design professional worked. Trial court judges and arbitrators have been split on this issue, with perhaps a slight majority favoring one or the other approaches advocated by developers and general contractors, that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work is “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy in a project (the minority view) or upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor of design professional worked (the majority view). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

March 30, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In an important decision regarding bad faith and the application of the work product doctrine to work performed by an insurer's in-house counsel, the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the Intermediate Court of Appeals's upholding the trial court's award of summary judgment to a title insurer on the issue of bad faith. Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 2016 Haw. LEXIS 30 (Feb. 4. 2016). Llyod Anastasi loaned Alajos Nagy $2.4 million. The loan was secured by a mortgage on property. After Nagy executed the $2.4 million mortgage, a warranty deed was signed by Paul Stickney and purported to deed the property from Stickney to Nagy in exchange for $10 in consideration. Fidelity issued Anastasi a title insurance policy on the property in the amount of $2.4 million. The policy promised to provide a defense where a third party asserted a claims adverse to the interest of the insured. 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

St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

October 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In a new lawsuit, the Signature Place Condominium Association claims "it is spending ‘large sums' of money to repair problems ranging from cracks in exterior walls to improper fire wall installation to excessive noise from air-conditioning and heating systems,” according to the Tampa Bay Times. The lawsuit also stated that “some of the alleged defects were hidden by building components and finishes and thus were not discovered by owners "until after the purchase and occupancy of the unit,” reported the Tampa Bay Times. The association “seeks damages in excess of $15,000, cites more than 100 other alleged construction and design defects.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Measures Landlords and Property Managers Can Take in Response to a Reported COVID-19 Infection

May 18, 2020 — Kyle Janecek & Jason Morris - Newmeyer Dillion
Most landlords and property managers are now familiar with steps they should be taking to reduce the spread of COVID-19. But what if a tenant or employee has tested positive with COVID-19? Unfortunately, many landlords and property managers are grappling with this very question. While there’s some clarity as it pertains to evictions in the landlord-tenant context, other considerations like disinfection, required notices, and maintenance, are evolving or unclear. Here are steps landlords and property managers can take in response to an employee or tenant testing positive with COVID-19. Measures Landlords Can Take for Employees For workplaces, there is a large variety of guidelines and procedures that are generally available to review. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has valuable guidance available online here and here. The Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA) has valuable guidance available online here. In short, if there is an incident where one employee may have exposed others to COVID-19, here are five steps employers should take:

Send the affected employee home and instruct them not to return to work until the criteria to discontinue home isolation are met in consultation with healthcare providers, and state and local health departments. Make sure to maintain all information about employee illnesses as a confidential medical record.
Ask the affected employee whether they have had close contact with any other workers.

Reprinted courtesy of J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion and Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at jason.morris@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

November 07, 2022 — Reeya Patel - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington v. Roof Doctor, Inc. d/b/a Roof Doctors, Inc. of Tacoma (Unpublished opinion) Roof Doctor, a company engaging maintenance of roofs, was hired to complete work for a commercial building in Tacoma in February 2018. During the job, Roof Doctor was cited for two violations by a Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ (L&I) compliance inspector and seven additional asbestos violations. Each citation was rated with a probability of 1 – 3 to determine the likelihood of injury, illness, or disease. The ratings allowed issuance of an appropriate monetary penalty. The disputes among the parties on appeal were as follows: First, L&I and Roof Doctor disputed the asbestos probability ratings and calculated penalties. L&I produced as evidence, the fact that nine employees were physically hanging roofing material with asbestos, but none had training or knew that the material contained asbestos. L&I did agree that that most of the employees were experienced in handling roofing material and knew of the dangers that asbestos presented. Roof Doctor explained that because the employees were working outdoors, the danger of asbestos exposure was mitigated due to a low probability that a high concentration of asbestos could be inhaled by the employees when outdoors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

Courts Will Not Rewrite Your Post-Loss Property Insurance Obligations

June 14, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In the preceding posting, I wrote about making sure you comply with your property insurance policy’s post-loss policy obligations. By failing to comply, you can render your policy ineffective meaning you are forfeiting otherwise valid insurance coverage, which was the situation discussed in the preceding posting. As an insured, you should never want this to occur! In another case, discussed here, the property insurance policy had a preferred contractor endorsement. This means that instead of paying the insured insurance proceeds, the insurer could perform the repairs with its preferred contractor. Typically, the insured will pay a discount on their premium for this preferred contractor endorsement. The insurer elected to move forward with the repairs based on the preferred contractor endorsement but the insured performed the repairs on his own and then sold the house. By doing this, the appellate court held the insured rendered his policy ineffective by breaching his own policy (and failing to allow this post-loss obligation to take place). The explicit terms of the policy allowed the insurer to perform the repairs instead of paying the insured insurance proceeds. The court could NOT rewrite the post-loss obligations in the policy by requiring the insurer to pay insurance proceeds when the insurer, per the preferred contractor endorsement, elected to perform the repairs. 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

Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

September 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Seventy-four condominium owners that reside in the Villas at Northstar in Westerville, Ohio, have sued Romanelli & Hughes, the builder, for alleged construction issues that led to water intrusion, according to The Columbus Dispatch. “There have been noted deficiencies at every building out there, with both the roofs and wall systems,” Kevin Fields, a partner at Kasman & Cusimano, the firm that is representing the condo owners, told The Columbus Dispatch. “There’s been severe water infiltration through the walls, which has caused underlying damage, and various roof leaks and roofs not properly secured — in essence, sliding off the buildings.” Counsel for the builder, Gabe Roehrenbeck, a partner with Thompson Hines law firm, stated that “he could not comment on the specifics of the case…because he has not had time to analyze it.” But he issued the statement, “Romanelli & Hughes is an award-winning builder that over the course of more than 40 years has built a reputation for client service and satisfaction.” Construction defects listed in the suit include “failure to install or improper installation of flashing, ice shields, roofing paper, shingles, control joints in stucco and weather-resistant barriers.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES