Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

September 07, 2017 — Stephen H. Reisman – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
While Hurricane Irma boils in the Atlantic and seems to be aiming towards Florida, storm preparations are well underway. As contractors are busy organizing efforts to secure their job sites, we at Peckar & Abramson offer some quick reminders that may prove helpful when the dust finally settles:

Review your contracts, particularly the force majeure provisions, and be sure to comply with applicable notice requirements.
Even if not expressly required at this point in time, consider providing written notice to project owners that their projects are being prepared for a potential hurricane or tropical storm and that productivity and the progress of the work will be affected, with the actual time and cost impact to be determined after the event.
Consult your hurricane plan (which is often a contract exhibit) and confirm compliance with all specified safety, security and protection measures.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen H. Reisman, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Reisman may be contacted at sreisman@pecklaw.com

Courthouse Reporter Series: The Bizarre Case That Required a 117-Year-Old Expert

December 04, 2023 — Todd Heffner & Di'Vennci Lucas - The Dispute Resolver
A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, Munro v. Georgia Department of Transportation, highlights how overly specific and inflexible rules of evidence can create peculiar results. Munro involved a dispute over the design of a Georgia intersection. No. A23A0404, 2023 WL 4194716 (Ga. Ct. App. June 27, 2023). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant improperly designed the intersection, never corrected that improper design, and failed to properly maintain the intersection. These claims were dismissed for a very odd reason: the plaintiff’s expert witness wasn’t old enough. The case arose from a car accident. A vehicle in which the plaintiff Munro was a passenger collided with a tractor trailer crossing an intersection. Munro sued the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) for negligently designing, maintaining, and inspecting the intersection. The DOT filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of sovereign immunity and a motion to exclude the testimony of the Munros’ expert witness, among other motions. The trial court dismissed the case in full on the sovereign immunity ground and denied the other motions as moot. The Munros appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Todd Heffner, Troutman Pepper and Di'Vennci Lucas, Troutman Pepper Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Heffner may be contacted at todd.heffner@troutman.com

Municipalities Owe a Duty to Pedestrians Regardless of Whether a Sidewalk Presents an “Open and Obvious” Hazardous Condition. (WA)

February 25, 2014 — Natasha Khachatourians – Scheer & Zehnder LLP Liability Newsletter
Issue: Does a municipality owe a duty to pedestrians to keep sidewalks reasonably safe for their intended use even if the condition of the sidewalk is an open and obvious hazard? YES Facts: Plaintiff Nanci Millson liked to walk in Lynden, Washington. While plaintiff regularly walked through her neighborhood and knew that various areas of the sidewalk were cracked and lifted, she continued to walk through her neighborhood nonetheless. Plaintiff felt that the sidewalks closer to her neighborhood were in better condition and when she reached an area a block away from her home, she picked up speed even though she was in an area of sidewalk she previously had not walked before. Plaintiff became distracted, tripped on an elevated sidewalk and fell, suffering various injuries. Plaintiff sued the City of Lynden (“City”) for negligently failing to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. The City argued that the tripping hazard was “open and obvious”, and the trial court granted the City summary judgment. The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether an “open and obvious” condition is a matter of law to be decided by the court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Natasha Khachatourians, Scheer & Zehnder LLP
Ms. Khachatourians may be contacted at natashak@scheerlaw.com

Rhode Island Sues 13 Industry Firms Over Flawed Interstate Bridge

September 23, 2024 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
In an attempt to recoup any money Rhode Island will owe to others for rerouting traffic on half of a high-volume interstate bridge in Providence after structural flaws had been detected, the state Dept. of Transportation filed a lawsuit Aug. 16 against 13 engineers and contractors that had inspected or performed work on the Washington Bridge in the last decade. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Group Seeks Defense Coverage for Hard Rock Stadium Claims

December 09, 2019 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In an insurance coverage action pending in the S.D.N.Y., Hunt Construction Group (Hunt) contends that Berkley Assurance Company wrongfully denied defense coverage for claims arising out of the renovation of Hard Rock Stadium (home to the Miami Dolphins and Miami Hurricanes football teams). The stadium owner, South Florida Stadium LLC (SFS), hired Hunt to serve as the construction manager for the renovation project. Hunt subcontracted with Alberici Constructors Inc. (Alberici) to design and fabricate roof structures for the stadium. Hunt and SFS sued Alberici over its work on the project. In March 2017, Alberici asserted counterclaims against Hunt and SFS. In May 2018, SFS sought defense and indemnification from Hunt with respect to Alberici’s coverage claims. Hunt is insured under claims made and reported professional liability insurance policies issued by Berkley with policy periods from June 15, 2016 to June 15, 2017 (with an automatic extended reporting period through August 14, 2017) and from July 15, 2017 to June 15, 2018. Hunt notified Berkley of Alberici’s counterclaim on July 20, 2017 (within the extended reporting period of the 2016-2017 policy) and of SFS’s indemnity claim on June 5, 2018 (within the 2017-2018 policy period). Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims

October 28, 2024 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
If a property owner claims there is a construction defect, that not only brings the project’s integrity into question but also your business’s reputation. So, how can you take steps to prevent these claims from causing such damage? Here are three things to know before beginning a project to effectively protect it and manage construction defect claims. 1. Documentation is key California and Los Angeles County require certain permits and documents in order for a construction project to move forward. Los Angeles County will also conduct plan checks to ensure everything is up to code. Detailed documentation will be important while making your plans. However, keeping notes throughout every step of the project will also be essential. Documenting all aspects of the project helps you:

Stay updated and aware of the project’s progress
Proactively catch and handle issues that could result in disputes
Create a record of evidence that can help manage defect claims

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit

October 24, 2023 — Geoffrey B. Fehling & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. BAS Holding Corp., the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected an insurer’s “insupportable” defense that the insured company had breached its duty to cooperate by refusing the insurer’s request for an examination under oath of the company’s president. The decision is a reminder that, while examinations under oath can be effective tools to allow the insurer to properly investigate a claim, an insured’s duty to cooperate is not boundless and does not demand attendance at examinations that are not reasonably requested. Background BAS Holding involves the destruction of a landmark building in Boston by an arsonist. The owner, BAS Holding Corporation, submitted an insurance claim to its property insurer to recover insurance proceeds for the damage to the building. The insurer investigated the claim to determine whether the damage to the building was covered and issued a reservation of rights letter suggesting that the policy may not provide coverage for the fire. As part of its investigation, the insurer requested an examination under oath as a condition to coverage under the policy, which led to BAS presenting the property’s operations coordinator for an interview. Shortly after examining the operations coordinator, the insurer sought another examination of BAS’s president and owner, as well as five other employees. In response, BAS questioned whether the additional examinations were “reasonably required” and said that it would consider the requests if the insurer could explain why they were necessary. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

June 09, 2016 — Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
California’s one-action rule provides that “[t]here can be but one form of action for the recovery of any debt or the enforcement of any right secured by mortgage upon real property or an estate for years therein . . . .” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 726(a). In other words, the one-action rule prescribes that the only process for recovery of a debt secured by a mortgage or deed of trust is to foreclose on the lien. The rule aims to prevent a multiplicity of actions and vexatious litigation, and to force a beneficiary to look to all of the security as the primary fund for payment of a debt before looking to the trustor’s other assets. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES