Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

After seeing their $1 million jury award overturned on appeal by a judge who called the award “against the weight of evidence and likely due to misapprehension, confusion or passion,” Kathryn and Christian Culley are seeking to have him removed from the case. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has rejected their claim.

The Culleys claim that Judge Thomas R. Murtagh’s decision was influence by him membership in the Andover Country Club which is represented by the opposing counsel in their construction defect case. Justice Margot G. Botsford had denied the Culley’s request, ruling that they had other remedies available to them.

The SJC noted in their ruling that if the Culleys are alleging judicial misconduct a request must be made to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Their lawyer plans to file a new motion for recusal with the SJC.

Read the full story…

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

Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei

October 28, 2015 — Kathleen Chu, Joji Mochida & Katsuyo Kuwako – Bloomberg
Japanese real estate investment trusts are joining apartment owners and regulators in pushing Asahi Kasei Corp. for answers on an apartment building sagging sideways on the outskirts of Tokyo, as concerns are mounting that it may not be an isolated case. REITs including Advance Residence Investment, Nippon Accommodation Fund Inc., Daiwa House Residential Investment Corp. and Japan Rental Housing Investment Inc. have all asked Asahi Kasei for details on what other buildings might be flawed, according to the trusts. Asahi Kasei disclosed on Thursday the names of prefectures where the company has undertaken work in the past 10 years on more than 3,000 buildings, after the land ministry requested the data. The sites include 342 schools, 257 medical and health-care facilities, 696 housing complexes and 217 office buildings, the firm said. Asahi Kasei, the subcontractor of the project, said a unit didn’t properly install foundation piles at an apartment building in Yokohama, and the division falsified data on the work. The scandal has sent Asahi Kasei’s shares down more than 21 percent since Oct. 13, when news of the flawed building first emerged. Shares of Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co., the contractor, plunged 25 percent and those of Mitsui Fudosan Co., which sold units at the Yokohama project in 2006, have tumbled 5 percent since then. All three companies said that the impact of the incident on their earnings is not yet clear. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg reporters Kathleen Chu, Joji Mochida and Katsuyo Kuwako Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Weslaco, Texas Investigating Possible Fraudulent Contractor Invoices

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The city of Weslaco in Texas fears that they have received “fraudulent invoices from the contractor of the…Valley Nature Center facility,” according to the Mid-Valley Town Crier. The project had been stalled due to “problems with numerous subcontractors claiming they hadn’t received payment.” Furthermore, “[c]onstruction is more than 14 months delayed and now halted as contractor GAS Enterprises demands more money from the city.” City Manager Leo Olivares informed GAS President Rene Salinas “that the city was aware of ‘forged requests for payments,’ ‘padding invoices’ and ‘requests for reimbursement for items, materials and labor that you did not pay,’” reported the Mid-Valley Town Crier. While Salinas did not respond to the Mid-Valley Town Crier when asked for a comment, he did send a letter to the city “arguing that none of the subcontractors had questioned the documents to him.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

August 31, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Skanska United States Bldg., No. 18-cv-11700-DLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95403 (Skanska), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether contractors on a construction job were additional insureds on the developer’s builder’s risk insurance policy. After a water loss occurred during construction, the builder’s risk insurance carrier paid its named insured for the resultant damage, and subsequently filed a subrogation action against two contractors. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the anti-subrogation rule barred the carrier from subrogating against them because they were additional insureds on the policy. The court found that based on the particular language of the additional insured provision in the policy, the defendants were not additional insureds for purposes of the subrogation action. Skanska arose from property damage that occurred during a construction project where Novartis Corporation (Novartis) endeavored to construct a biomedical research building in Cambridge, Massachusetts and retained Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska) as the general contractor. In turn, Skanksa hired J.C. Cannistraro, LLC (JCC) as a subcontractor. Novartis secured a builder’s risk insurance policy from Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Factory Mutual). The policy defined “Insured” as Novartis and its subsidiaries, partnerships and joint ventures that it controlled or owned. The policy included another provision, titled “Property Damage,” which stated that the policy “insures the interest of contractors and subcontractors in insured property… to the extent of the Insured’s legal liability for insured physical loss or damage to such property.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

New York Restrictions on Flow Through Provision in Subcontracts

August 14, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
Most subcontracts include a flow through provision (also called flow down and incorporation clauses) stating that the subcontractor and contractor are bound by the same obligations as set forth in the prime contract between the contractor and owner. Many jurisdictions interpret such provisions narrowly, as illustrated in a recent case out of New York. In Amerisure Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Group, Inc., 2023 WL 3311879, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s interpretation of a flow through clause in a construction subcontract. The Amerisure case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for a personal injury to a subcontractor’s employee on a construction project. The owner of the project sought defense and indemnity from the general contractor (GC) and its insurance company, who in turn sought coverage for the owner as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy. The GC based its argument for coverage on the flow through provision in the subcontract. The prime contract required the GC to procure commercial liability insurance including the owner as an additional insured for claims caused by the GC’s negligent acts or omissions. The subcontract likewise required the subcontractor to procure commercial general liability insurance but required only that the GC be named as an additional insured. However, the subcontract also included a flow through clause, binding the subcontractor to the terms of the prime contract and assuming toward the GC all the obligations and responsibilities that the GC assumed toward the owner. However, the subcontract did not expressly require that the subcontractor name the owner as an additional insured, and in order for the owner to qualify as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s insurance policy, the subcontractor must have agreed in the subcontract to name the owner as an additional insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

How Long does a Florida Condo Association Have to File a Construction Defect Claim?

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a post on Orlando Sentinel’s HOA & Condo Blog, sponsored by the firm Becker & Poliakoff, generally a Condominium Association has “4 years from turnover of control of the Condominium Association from the developer” to file a lawsuit for construction defects. However, the association may have additional time to file. If defects from the original construction were discovered after the 4 years have lapsed, “[a] condominium association may still pursue a claim for latent defects,” which is one that “is hidden, and not discovered despite the exercise of due diligence, for the period of 4 years from turnover.” The Statute of Repose in Florida is “10 years from the date the building received its original Certificate of Occupancy.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

July 18, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy. In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts: In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. 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

Hawaii Federal District Court Compels Appraisal

December 03, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii federal district court denied the insurers' motion to dismiss on forum non convenient grounds and granted the insured's motion to compel arbitration. BRE Hotels and Resorts LCC, et al. v. Ace Am Ins. Co., et al., 2024 U,.S. Dist. LEXIS 163852 (D. Haw. Sept. 11, 2024). BRE Hotels & Resorts LLC (BRE) owned the Grand Wailea Resort on Maui and the Turtle Bay Resort on Oahu. Both hotels were damaged by a rainstorm on March 9, 2021. Estimated losses exceeded $55 million. BRE filed a claim with its sixteen insurers. BRE sought $46 million in four categories: business interruption losses at the Grand Wailea ($29.6 million); damaged tiles at the Grand Wailea ($8.3 million); furniture, fixtures, and equipment at Turtel Bay ($6.2 million); and an assortment of ancillary issues at both properties ($1.9 million). The insurers investigated and took issued with BRE's estimates. The insurers contended that most of the tiles suffered from an independent defect and were not damaged by the storm, that the insurance policies did not cover the replacement of undamaged furniture, and that the claimed business interruption losses were too high. The insurers paid $4 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES