Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Washington State Safety Officials Cite Contractor After Worker's Fatal Fall

October 09, 2023 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
Inspectors with the Washington State Dept. of Labor & Industries found that flipper deck platforms were not used in line with the manufacturer’s specifications on a jobsite where a worker was killed in a fall earlier this year. Officials cited a contractor, SAK Builders Inc., for $16,800 in penalties over three alleged serious violations. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

I’m Sorry, So Sorry: Legal Implications of Apologies and Admissions of Fault for Delaware Healthcare Professionals

March 12, 2015 — John D. Balaguer and Christine Kane – White and Williams LLP
In July 1960, Brenda Lee had the number one hit song in America. The 15-year-old singer belted her heart out as she expressed her apologies singing: I'm sorry, so sorry That I was such a fool I didn't know Love could be so cruel Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-yes You tell me mistakes Are part of being young But that don't right The wrong that's been done Views vary about whether a healthcare professional should convey an apology to a patient or patient’s family when treatment does not go as expected. The fear is that these words will be misconstrued as an admission of error that could make a negligence claim more likely, or at least make the claim, if it comes, harder to defend. In Delaware, the law provides some level of protection to such communications, but as a recent case illustrates, that protection is not absolute because the relevant statute makes an important distinction between an expression of apology, sympathy or condolence, and an admission of fault. So, if you are going to apologize, you are well advised to choose your words carefully. Reprinted courtesy of John D. Balaguer, White and Williams LLP and Christine Kane, White and Williams LLP Mr. Balaguer may be contacted at balaguerj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Kane may be contacted at kanec@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners

February 18, 2019 — Wilke Fleury
Wilke Fleury celebrates the addition of two new partners – Shannon Smith-Crowley and Daniel J. Foster – who complement the firm’s shifting generations of leadership. Shannon and Danny bring unique perspective and excellent capability to Wilke Fleury’s partnership effective January 1, 2019. Shannon has been a registered lobbyist in California for 20 years. After a career in managed care, she started lobbying with the California Medical Association before founding her own firm, Partners In Advocacy to specialize in medical and reproductive health advocacy. At Wilke Fleury, her areas of practice include health care, women’s equity, life sciences, the biomedical industry, new family formation and emerging technologies in green energy. After a four year tenure with the firm, she has been elevated to the partnership. Click here to read more about Shannon Smith-Crowley. Daniel Foster’s litigation practice is composed of matters involving complex construction defect litigation, mechanics liens claims, stop notice actions and Miller Act claims. He represents clients before the Contractors State License Board and handles matters involving breach of warranty, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, indemnity agreements and liability insurance coverage. Click here to read more about Daniel J. Foster Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

June 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. 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

Corps Releases Final Report on $29B Texas Gulf Coast Hurricane Defense Plan

October 11, 2021 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A $28.87 billion plan to protect the Texas Gulf Coast’s residents and infrastructure against hurricanes and storm surge with a series of coastal storm risk management and ecosystem restoration projects took a step closer to reality Sept. 10 with the release of a final feasibility report and final environmental impact statement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Texas General Land Office (GLO). Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at https://www.enr.com/leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Surety’s Several Liability Under Bonds

March 20, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a payment or performance bond is issued on behalf of its bond-principal, the surety is jointly and severally liable with its bond-principal. This means the surety has several liability under the bond, i.e., you don’t need to pursue the principal of the bond to pursue liability under the bond, which is a separate written intrument. Thus, if you are claiming damages of $500,000, by way of example, you can sue both the principal and surety under the bond, you can ONLY sue the principal under the bond (which is rarely practical), or you can ONLY sue the surety under the bond (which, oftentimes, is very practical). In many instances where I am pursuing a bond claim on behalf of a client, particularly a payment bond claim, I only sue the surety and do not sue the bond-principal unless there are certain strategic reasons in doing so. This is because of the surety’s several liability under the bond and there may be solvency issues with the principal or contractual reasons that, strategically, make much more sense to exclude the principal from the action. In MJM Electric, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2023 WL 2163087 (M.D.Fla. 2023), an electrical subcontractor was hired to perform electrical work by the prime contractor. The prime contractor had a payment bond. The project was delayed for two years. The electrical subcontractor claimed the prime contractor failed to compensate it for significant delays and out of scope work. 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

Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

April 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder. Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium). 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

Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

September 13, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On August 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett was a regulated wetlands under the then-controlling 1977 EPA rules defining “waters of the United States,” and that the Sacketts dredging and filling of their property was subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or EPA. EPA’s case, as it has been for many years, was based on 2008 EPA and Corps inspection reports and Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test as the controlling opinion in the 2006 Supreme Court case, Rapanos v. United States. The Sacketts’ argument was that the text of the Clean Water Act, as interpreted by Justice Scalia and three other Justices, was controlling, but for several years, the Ninth Circuit has relied on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in these CWA controversies. The court’s opinion expressed considerable sympathy for the Sacketts as they negotiated the thicket of EPA’s regulatory processes, but it could not disregard circuit precedent. A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in a unanimous decision, that EPA’s then extant administrative compliance orders were arbitrary and capricious. (See Sackett v. US, 566 US 120 (2015).) After that decision, the case was remanded to the federal district court, where it lingered for several more years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES