SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A California court ruled that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that had been approved by the city of San Francisco was adequate for the proposed 8,000-home development on Treasure Island, according to the San Francisco Business Times. The suit had been brought by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island back in 2011. However, in December of 2012, “a lower court affirmed the EIR and the citizens’ group appealed that decision.” The project was proposed by partners Lennar Corp. and Wilson Meany. The development would “add thousands of new housing units along with retail, hotel and office space in addition to renovating historic buildings and creating 300 acres of open space.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period

September 09, 2019 — Christopher Raney - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Firm’s insurer client on an issue of first impression in Texas. The issue before the trial court was whether, under Texas law, an insurer is required to demonstrate prejudice resulting from an insured’s failure to comply with an agreed term set in an endorsement to the parties’ insurance contract establishing a specific time limit for an insured to give the insurer notice of a claim. The case involved alleged damage to an insured’s commercial property from a hailstorm. The insured did not report the alleged loss to its insurer until approximately 17 months after the date of loss. The insurer denied the claim based on a one-year notice requirement in a policy endorsement. The Texas Windstorm or Hail Loss Conditions Amendment Endorsement stated that:

In addition to your obligation to provide us with prompt notice of loss or damage, with respect to any claim where notice of the claim is reported to us more than one year after the reported date of loss or damage, this policy shall not provide coverage for such claims.

The insured sued the insurer in Houston federal court, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The insured argued the insurer was required to show prejudice from the insured’s late notice; the insurer argued that a showing of prejudice was not required. The trial court recognized that this issue had not been decided by the Texas Supreme Court of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Raney, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Raney may be contacted at craney@grsm.com

---

Exploring the Future of Robotic Construction with Dr. Thomas Bock

November 06, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In this episode of the AEC Business podcast, host Aarni Heiskanen interviews Dr. Thomas Bock, a renowned expert in construction robotics. With 45 years of experience in the field and multiple books on the topic, Thomas shares his insights and expertise. Tune in to learn more about his professional journey and the advancements in construction robotics. An unconventional professional journey Thomas’s journey in construction robotics began when he built his own house as a student. The labor-intensive process led him to explore the potential of robotics in construction. He studied civil engineering and architecture simultaneously, gaining a multidisciplinary understanding of the field. His interest in robotics grew when he saw the first welding robot at a Daimler-Benz factory in Stuttgart. This encounter sparked his curiosity and led him to question why robots couldn’t be used for assembling walls and buildings. The Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chicago was one of Thomas’s destinations during his journey. There he studied under professors who had worked on iconic architectural projects. He also learned about Japanese companies like Toyota and Sekisui, which were producing houses using innovative methods. Intrigued by these advancements, Thomas secured a scholarship to study in Japan, where he discovered that the country was ahead of what he had known in the United States. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Choice of Law Provisions in Construction Contracts

October 07, 2024 — Victoria Davies - ConsensusDocs
If you have used a ConsensusDocs® construction agreement or another industry association construction agreement for one of your projects, you are accustomed to seeing the laws of the state where the construction project is located as the governing law. There are good reasons for the laws of the state where the project is located to govern the construction agreement for the project. Even if not headquartered in the state, the parties have a presence there by virtue of their participation in the project in the state. Personnel and records that may be needed to resolve a claim may be located in the state. If there are experts that need to be engaged, they will likely need to visit the site. These reasons of efficiency and convenience, alone, may justify the parties’ decision to select the project state’s laws to govern their construction contract. However, there is also the policy interest of the project state, whose laws may even mandate that the project state’s laws govern construction contracts for in-state projects and that the parties resolve their disputes in state as well. Several states have laws that require construction disputes for projects in the state to be resolved under its laws and/or litigated or arbitrated in the state. Some states require only that its laws govern and do not also require that the dispute resolution take place in the state, but some require both – that its laws govern and the disputes be resolved there. There may be different triggers as to when the statute applies. For example, in some states, the statute applies to any construction contract for a project in the state. In others, the law may only be triggered if one of the parties is domiciled in the state. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Davies, Jones Walker LLP
Ms. Davies may be contacted at vdavies@joneswalker.com

---

Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

February 15, 2021 — David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the case of NextSun Energy Littleton, LLC v. Acadia Ins. Co., the United States District Court of Massachusetts held that once direct physical damage from a covered peril causes a covered business interruption loss, any increase in the duration of such business interruption, due to the enforcement of an ordinance or law, extends the coverage period provided for lost income. The Court further held that a policy exclusion for business interruption due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law not in force at the time of the loss only applies when the ordinance or law itself, not the enforcement action that it authorizes, was not in force at the time of the loss. The case involved a solar panel company, NextSun Energy Littleton (NextSun), that operated solar panel arrays providing electricity to the town of Littleton, Massachusetts. Due to a fire, 88 of the solar panels were damaged, and the Town immediately issued a “red-tag” order halting all energy-generating activity pending a safety inspection. The plaintiff purchased insurance for its panels along with “Energy Generating Income” (EGI) coverage, from the defendant, Acadia Ins. Co. (Acadia). The EGI policy covered “direct physical loss or damage” to “renewable energy generating equipment” and also covered the actual loss of surplus power income incurred during the interruption period. However, it excluded interruption of energy-generating income “caused by the enforcement of any ordinance, law, or decree … not in force at the time of loss.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com

---

Fix for Settling Millennium Tower May Start This Fall

August 17, 2020 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
With the lengthy and complex permitting and approval process complete and almost all the other details worked out, construction could begin in mid-November on the estimated $100-million shoring fix for the 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower in San Francisco. The perimeter pile upgrade for the 58-story residential condominium building, which has settled more than 17 in. toward the northwest since its completion in 2009, was originally expected to begin earlier this year. Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

August 01, 2023 — Charles S. Anderson - Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (June 28, 2023) – On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sharply divided opinion that appears to backtrack on the Court’s steady trajectory away from assertions of general jurisdiction in recent years, e.g. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011), Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 2017, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017). Relying on a case from 1917, Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 (1917), Justice Gorsuch, writing on behalf of the plurality, (Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson) (Justice Alito concurring) found that Norfolk Southern “consented” to jurisdiction in Mallory via 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2)(i),(b) by registering to do business in Pennsylvania. This statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301, specifically permits jurisdiction over a corporation “incorporat[ed] under or qualifi[ed]as a foreign corporation under the laws of this Commonwealth … for any cause of action that may asserted against him, whether or not arising from acts enumerated in this section.” In Pennsylvania Fire, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution in connection with a Missouri law that required an out-of-state insurance company desiring to transact any business in the state to file paperwork agreeing to (1) appoint a state official to serve as the company’s agent for service of process and (2) accept service on that official as valid in any suit. After more than a decade of complying with the law, Pennsylvania Fire was served with process and argued that the Missouri law violated due process. The Court unanimously found that there was “no doubt” that Pennsylvania Fire could be sued in Missouri because it had agreed to accept service of process in Missouri on any suit as a condition of doing business there. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Charles S. Anderson, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Anderson may be contacted at Charles.Anderson@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

May 20, 2024 — David G. Jordan & William E. Phillips IV - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The "ensuing loss" clause is a provision that restores coverage for property insurance claims that are subject to certain policy exclusions, such as “faulty workmanship” and “faulty design.” It applies in cases where there is damage from a covered cause of loss that ensues, or results from, the excluded cause of loss. Courts across jurisdictions have grappled with interpreting the breadth of this clause, leading to varying conclusions regarding its scope and applicability. One of the primary challenges in interpreting “ensuing loss” lies in determining the ultimate cause of damage. Courts must ascertain whether the ensuing loss is sufficiently distinct from the excluded event to warrant coverage under the policy. This analysis often hinges on whether the cause of loss is thought to constitute a separate and independent occurrence or is merely a continuation or exacerbation of the excluded event. Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and William E. Phillips IV, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Mr. Phillips may be contacted at WPhillips@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---