Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

U.K. Construction Resumes Growth Amid Resurgent Housing Activity

October 07, 2016 — Scott Hamilton – Bloomberg
The U.K. construction industry returned to growth in September as a measure of housing activity jumped the most since 2013. IHS Markit said on Tuesday that its Purchasing Managers Index jumped to 52.3 from 49.2 in August. It was the highest level in six months and ended a three-month run of readings below 50, the threshold that divides expansion from contraction. The figures add to evidence that the economy is performing better than many predicted following the June decision to leave the European Union. Traders increasingly expect the Bank of England to refrain from adding to its August stimulus package this year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Hamilton, Bloomberg

The Greenest U.S. Cities & States

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
ECOBUILDING Pulse discussed the results of the 2014 U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index, which “tracks clean tech progress by state, and in the 50 largest metro areas.” The top three states with the highest Clean Tech Index score were California, Massachusetts, and Oregon. Out of the top 10 cities, 5 were located in California. The top three cities with the highest score were San Francisco, San Jose, and San Diego. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Economic Waste Doctrine and Construction Defects / Nonconforming Work

February 01, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
I recently did a presentation on the economic waste doctrine. It is an applicable doctrine dealing with construction defects and nonconforming work. When it comes to construction defects and nonconforming work, EVERYTHING starts with your measure of damages. How are you going to prove your damages? Next, what evidence are you going to use to prove your damages? Or, what are the defenses and how do you prove those defenses to a construction defect and nonconforming work claim including the economic waste doctrine? If you are interested in learning more, the below presentation can shed detail. However, don’t rely on the presentation in a vacuum. Work with knowledgeable construction counsel (like me!) that can best position your case whether you are the one proving construction defects and nonconforming work or the one defending against such a claim. This way, if you are arguing economic waste, you are not just throwing it out there, but you are arguing it to actually mean it! 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

Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

August 04, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Recently, my friend and fellow construction attorney/consultant, Chris Cheatham (@chrischeatham) posted the news that USGBC will be more stringent on the de-certification front. This statement relates to the continued energy performance of LEED certified buildings and increases the likelihood that energy performance (as opposed to mere reporting) could lead to de-certification. I have discussed on several occasions the potential legal risks relating to green building. One of the big potential sources for such litigation (or “leedigation” as coined by Mr. Cheatham) is the possible de-certification of a previously certified building. With this latest statement by USGBC the specter of such de-certification seems even stronger. Couple this potential with the fact that anyone can challenge the certification of a building at any time and contractors, subcontractors and other construction professionals face potential liability for the performance of a building in ways well beyond their control. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Drone Operation in a Construction Zone

August 17, 2020 — Mark R. Berry & Freddy X. Muñoz - Peckar & Abramson
The potential uses of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the construction industry continue to expand as new technologies enter the market and construction companies realize UAS can perform unique tasks at tremendous cost savings. The full technological capabilities of UAS are, however, limited by law for public safety reasons. UAS share airspace with traditional passenger, military and cargo aircraft, and are potential hazards for humans below. The risk of potential catastrophic collisions has led to a careful approach to the adoption of this technology. All U.S. airspace is exclusively regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and therefore, most drone regulation originates from this agency. Many states and localities have also enacted additional limits on UAS operations, and many of these nonfederal regulations are presently on unsure footing after a federal court ruling in Singer v. Newton invalidated a local regulation that conflicted with FAA regulations. What is clear is that all commercial UAS operations must comply with FAA regulations. Any drone operation conducted by any private company, even through use of an employee’s personal drone, would constitute commercial operation subject to regulation. Reprinted courtesy of Mark R. Berry, Peckar & Abramson and Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Berry may be contacted at mberry@pecklaw.com Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

October 27, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer prevailed on summary judgment establishing it had no duty to defend the insured roofing contractor for damage caused by tar escaping from a roof. Mesa Underwriters Spec. Ins. Co. v. Myers, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108444 (W.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2016). Myers contracted to do roofing work for Sireco III LLC. Myers removed stones from the roof, patched all bad sections, and sealed the roof. To seal the roof, Myers used a roofing-tar sealant. The substance was a skin irritant and harmful or fatal if swallowed. Myers expected the sealant to harden within twenty-four hours. When rain hit the area eleven days later, however, it washed the sealant off the roof and into the downspouts. It then flowed into the city's sewer system and eventually into Lake Erie. 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

Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

August 20, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The subcontractor's insurer could not escape contributing to defense costs of its insured when coverage was possible based upon the underlying complaint's allegations. Seneca Ins. Co. v. James River Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97156 (D. Ore. July 17, 2014). The underlying action alleged construction defects in a 60-unit complex located in Seaside, Oregon. S.D. Deacon Corp. was the general contractor and contracted with the owners association to reconstruct portions of the building, including the curtain wall. Deacon subcontracted with Superwall Design, LLP for work on the curtain wall renovation. At some point not specified in the underlying complaint, the Association notified Deacon of construction defects in the curtain wall renovation. Deacon investigated and concluded that the alleged property damage was the result of inadequate usage of materials, violations of state and local building codes, and violations of relevant industry standards relating to the work performed by Superwall. Deacon contended that the problems were caused by Superwall's faulty workmanship. 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

NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

February 24, 2020 — Traub Lieberman
In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2019 WL 6109144 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 18, 2019), New Jersey Transit (“NJT”) defeated the claim of several of its insurers that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to its Superstorm Sandy damages and recovered the full $400 million limits of its property insurance tower. The decision is a big win for the beleaguered transit agency, and for insurance professionals working with complex insurance towers, the decision highlights critical underwriting issues that can dramatically affect the amount of risk transferred by the policyholder or assumed by the insurer. In NJ Transit, NJT secured a multi-layered property insurance program providing $400 million in all-risk coverage. The first and second layers provided $50 million each, the third and fourth layers provided $175 million and $125 million, respectively, with several insurers issuing quota shares in each layer. The program contained a $100 million flood sublimit, and “flood” was defined to include a “surge” of water. The program did not contain a sublimit for damage caused by a “named windstorm,” which was defined to include “storm surge” associated with a named storm. After NJT made its Superstorm-Sandy claim, some of the third- and fourth-layer insurers advised NJT that the $100 million flood sublimit applied to bar coverage under their policies. NJT sued these excess insurers and won at the trial and appellate levels. In holding that the $100 million flood sublimit did not apply, the court applied the rule of construction that the specific definition of “named windstorm,” which included the terms “storm surge” and “wind driven water,” controlled over the policies’ more general definition of “flood.” In ascertaining the parties’ intent, the court noted that the omission of the term “storm surge” in the definition of “flood” evidenced an intention that the flood sublimit would not apply to storm surges. Based on this finding, the court rejected several arguments made by the insurers that other policy provisions evidenced the parties’ intent to apply the flood sublimit to all flood-related losses, regardless of whether the loss was caused by a storm surge. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES