Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

October 28, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The pollution exclusion barred coverage for alleged property damage and bodily injury in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Harbor Walk Dev., LLC, No. 2:10cv312 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 2011).

Homeowners sued the insured, Harbor Walk, in three lawsuits, alleging the Chinese drywall installed in their homes emitted sulfides and other noxious gases. This caused corrosion and damage to the air-conditioning and ventilation units, refrigeration coils, copper tubing, faucets, metal surfaces, electrical appliances and other personal items. The homeowners also alleged the compounds emitted by the drywall caused bodily injury, such as allergic reactions, headaches, etc.

Harbor Walk’s insurer, Evanston, filed for a declaratory judgment that the pollution exclusion precluded coverage.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Homeowners sometimes aren’t too clear on questions of “building codes, permit process or where to find the right materials,” according to Benoni Mocanu, the owner of MB Development. He’s ready to step in an help by offering construction consulting to homeowners doing their own remodeling projects. In addition to providing the advice to help them through their projects, they’re ready to step in if a homeowner finds that they can’t finish the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Grants Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment After Insured Fails to Provide Evidence of Systemic Collapse

April 15, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
With the insurer conceding that there was evidence of potential collapse at portions of eight specific building locations, the court granted the insurer's motion for partial summary judgment in determining no additional buildings suffered from collapse. Exec. 1801 LLC v. Eagle W. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEZXIS 5923 (D. Or. Jan. 11, 2024). Executive 1801 owned a group of six buildings with eighty-six residential units. The court previously granted partial summary judgment on Executive 1801's rain damage claim, leaving only claims regarding collapse. Eagle insured "the property for direct physical los or damage to Covered Property . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of loss." The policy further provided, "We will pay for direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property, caused by collapse of a building or any part of a building insured under this policy, if the collapse is caused by . . . hidden decay." 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

Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

January 19, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We all know that the contract is king in Virginia. We also know that Virginia will allow for a so called “incorporation” clause that will allow for “flow down” of certain prime contract provisions in a way that will make those provisions applicable to subcontractors. We also know that a claim for breach of contract or other contractual claim does not last forever due to certain statutes of limitation found in the Code of Virginia. What happens when all of these elements crash together in one place leading to litigation? Well, a relatively recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least a partial answer. In Hensel Phelps Construction Company v Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc, the Virginia Supreme Court considered a claim that arose from construction at Virginia Tech by Hensel Phelps. The construction concluded in 1998 (remember that date). The Prime Contract included language concerning a one year “Guarantee of Work” as well as fairly typical Warranty of Workmanship” language. However the Prime Contract also stated that the one year guaranty term did nothing to affect any other limitations period for any other action pursuant to the Prime Contract (this is important as well because Virginia Tech was not subject to any statute of limitations due to its status as an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia). Final payment was made to Hensel Phelps and subsequently to the subcontractors in 1999. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

May 31, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
As you may know, material prices have been climbing. And they continue to climb based on the volatility of the material market. On top of that, there are lead times in getting material due to supply chain and other related concerns. The question is, how are you addressing these risks? These are risks that need to be addressed in your contract. As it relates to climbing material prices, one consideration is a material escalation provision. The objective of this provision is to address the volatility of the material market in economic climates, such as today’s climate, where the price of material continues to climb. Locking down a material price today will be different than locking down the same price months from today. This volatility and risk impacts pricing and budgets. Naturally, an owner and contractor would like to be in a position to lock down supplier prices as soon as possible—both to secure pricing and to account for items with long lead times or that recent data forecasts a long lead time due to supply chain concerns. However, this is not always possible or practical and can depend on numerous issues such as when the owner contracts with the contractor, when the owner issues the notice to proceed (and permits are issued), final construction documents and revisions to the construction documents, the type of material, whether there is staging or storage available for the materials, and the current status including climitazation of the project. 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

Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

August 10, 2021 — Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLP
Few courts have yet decided insurance coverage issues in litigation involving per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But yesterday, in Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Chemicals, Inc., No. H-20-3493, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146702 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum & Forster) had a duty to defend Chemicals, Inc. against firefighters’ allegations that they were injured by PFAS contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The AFFF claims are consolidated in the multi-district litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, and you can read more about that here. Turning to the decision from August 5, 2021, Crum & Forster issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Chemicals, Inc. for liability arising from bodily injury, to the extent that injury “first occur[ed] during the ‘policy period[.]’” Further, a “Continuous or Progressive Damage or Injury” condition in the policies stated, “If the date cannot be determined upon which such ‘bodily injury’ … first occurred[,] then, … such ‘bodily injury’ … will be deemed to have occurred or existed, … before the ‘policy period’.” The Crum & Forster policies were issued between 2011 and 2019. The complaints in the MDL do not specify when the firefighters were allegedly exposed to PFAS-containing AFFF or when the firefighters first allegedly manifested symptoms of such exposure. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Just Because I May Be An “Expert” Does Not Mean I Am Giving Expert Testimony

January 17, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
On a construction project, it’s hard to argue that the involved parties — whether an architect, engineer, contractor, subcontractor, developer, etc. — are not experts in their field, i.e., they all some scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge or skill particular to their industry. However, this does NOT mean when they testify in trial, at an arbitration, or at a deposition regarding the construction project they are offering expert opinions / testimony as it pertains to that project. Testifying as to facts based on personal knowledge or involvement on a project makes you a fact witness and is different than evaluating and rending an after-the-fact opinion as to the work of others. This does not minimize your knowledge or expertise; it simply means that relative to the construction project you are involved with, your testimony is that of a fact witness and not of an expert. (It is possible to wear both the fact witness and expert witness hat, but that depends on your subsequent role in the litigation or arbitration.) 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

U.S. Supreme Court Halts Enforcement of the OSHA Vaccine or Test Mandate

January 17, 2022 — Stephen E. Irving, Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren Rayner Davis - Peckar & Abramson
The United States Supreme Court today stayed enforcement of the OSHA emergency temporary standard (ETS) requiring employers with 100 or more employees to require employees either be “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing. The ruling immediately stops enforcement of the rule which had gone into effect on January 10, 2022. Today’s order raises significant doubt as to whether the ETS requirement will ever take effect in its current form. A 6 to 3 majority of the Supreme Court justices issued the profound statement that the parties opposed to the rule “are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate.” The Court went on to state that the OSH Act does not authorize the agency to “set . . . broad public health measures,” such as the found in the current emergency standard. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson and Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.com Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES