Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

April 05, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
There have been a couple of decisions as of late, particularly in federal court, that have gone in favor of a performance bond surety and against a general contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. These decisions have been so unfavorable that they may be swaying certain internal decisions to move to subcontractor default insurance with, perhaps, subcontractors that pose less risk. From the general contractor’s perspective, if they have to stop the management of the job and progress to jump through hoops to trigger the performance bond’s obligations, rightfully or wrongfully, the bond may not provide them the value they need. Performance bonds are an appropriate product in many instances, but there should be more consistency regarding the actual trigger of a subcontractor’s performance bond obligations. Project teams need to absolutely understand what efforts they need to take, and how they need to take such efforts, in order to properly trigger a performance bond’s obligations. This is a must (and I have presented many seminars on this very issue). Or, the general contractor should move away from the traditional AIA /standard performance bond form, which is the direction I always go when I am involved in the drafting of a performance bond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Baltimore Bridge Collapse Occurred After Ship Lost Power Multiple Times

May 28, 2024 — Allyson Versprille - Bloomberg
The container ship that rammed into Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge in March lost power multiple times on both the day of the fatal accident and the day before, according to a preliminary report. The Dali, which sails under the flag of Singapore, lost power twice on March 26 before hitting the bridge and causing it to collapse, killing six construction workers who were on the structure at the time. The first blackout was caused when electrical breakers powering most of the vessel’s equipment and lighting unexpectedly tripped, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a report Tuesday. The crew eventually was able to restore electrical power, but then a second blackout occurred only 0.2 miles from the bridge. They regained power, but the ship lacked the propulsion needed to avoid striking the bridge, safety inspectors found. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Allyson Versprille, Bloomberg

Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?

February 19, 2024 — Sofya Uvaydov & John F. Watkins - Kahana Feld
In 2021, Mark Perez’ Labor Law 240(1) lawsuit made legal news by breaking the record of the highest appellate-sustained pain and suffering award in New York history. While that record was short-lived, it still maintains its place as New York’s highest-ever pain and suffering award for a brain injury. This January 17th, the Appellate Division, First Department revisited the litigation but, this time, in a dispute between Perez and his then-lawyer, Ben Morelli and the Morelli Law Firm. Mr. Perez claims breach of contract over a 10% additional contingency fee charge related to the Perez v. Live Nation appeal and breach of fiduciary duty by his counsel in failing to convey settlement offers during the lifetime of the case. The Morelli firm counters, among other things, that the prior settlement offers – a $30 million offer during the 2019 trial and intermediate sums during the appellate stage – were still lower than the ultimate $55 million settlement. No harm, Mr. Morelli argues, and thus no foul in failing to convey the offers. But is that so? Did Mark Perez ultimately receive more money in his $55 million settlement than from the $30 million settlement offer mid-trial? Despite the glaring $25 million difference, the surprising calculations show that Perez would have been financially better off taking the $30 million mid-trial settlement. Reprinted courtesy of Sofya Uvaydov, Kahana Feld and John F. Watkins, Kahana Feld Ms. Uvaydov may be contacted at suvaydov@kahanafeld.com Mr. Watkins may be contacted at jwatkins@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery

March 15, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's recovery for flood damage was controlled by the policy's sub-limit. David S. Brown Enters. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239208 (D. Md. Dec. 18, 2020). Roughly 6.6 inches of rain fell in Ellicott City, Maryland, causing extensive flooding. During the storm, a water main broke on Main Street, in relatively close proximity to the insured's two properties on Main Street. The foundations of the two properties washed away. The insured, David S. Brown Enterprises (DSB), had a business owners' policy with Affiliated with covered 204 named locations. The Main Street Properties were not listed, but the policy also provided certain coverage for unnamed locations. The sub-limit applicable to unnamed locations was $1,000,000. The sub-limit for flood, however, was $50,000, annual aggregate "as respects Errors & Omissions, Off-Premises Service Interruption, Unnamed Locations and Supply Chain combined." Affiliated paid $50,000 for the loss based upon the $50,000 Flood annual aggregated Sub-Limit for Unnamed Locations. DSB disagreed that the $50,000 sub-limit applied and filed suit. 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

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Every Employer Should Know

April 06, 2020 — Donald A. Velez, Karissa L. Fox & Sarah K. Carpenter - Smith Currie
Smith Currie provides this update regarding the Families First Coronavirus Response Act as part of its continuing effort to monitor developments concerning the Coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”) and provide guidance as to potential issues that may arise in businesses across the United States. On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “Act”), which contains provisions requiring certain private employers to provide paid leave to employees who cannot work because of Coronavirus, expanding Family and Medical Leave Act coverage, providing for federal tax credits to affected employers, and providing eligible states the ability to further fund their unemployment trust fund accounts. The Act is effective as of April 2, 2020 and will remain in place through December 31, 2020. Below, we provide a summary of the Act and several of its key components, including the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”), the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act, and the Emergency Unemployment Insurance Stabilization and Access Act. Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie attorneys Donald A. Velez, Karissa L. Fox and Sarah K. Carpenter Mr. Velez may be contacted at davelez@smithcurrie.com Ms. Fox may be contacted at klfox@smithcurrie.com Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Appeals Court Overruled Insured as Additional Insured on Subcontractor’s Commercial General Liability Policy

April 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Scott R. Murphy and Clifford J. Shapiro of Barnes & Thornburg LLP in the publication National Law Review analyzed the findings of the Mississippi case Carl E. Woodward, LLC v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance: “the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overruled the district court’s determination that a general contractor was insured as an additional insured on its subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy for claims arising out of the allegedly defective work performed by the subcontractor.” “This case underscores the fact that many standard policy forms do not include completed operations coverage for additional insureds,” Murphy and Shapiro declared. “Owners and contractors that desire to have such coverage therefore need to check their contracts to be make sure the contract language requires completed operations coverage for additional insureds, and they also need to obtain and review the actual additional insured endorsement contained in their subcontractors’ insurance policies before work commences to make sure that the required completed operations insurance coverage is provided.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Can a Non-Signatory Invoke an Arbitration Provision?

February 02, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
As you know from prior postings, arbitration is a creature of contract. Hence, if you want your disputes to be resolved through arbitration, as opposed to litigation, make sure to include an arbitration provision in your agreement that covers all disputes arising out of or relating to the agreement. Under certain circumstances, a non-signatory to an agreement wants to invoke an arbitration clause in the agreement. The non-signatory will move to compel a signatory to the agreement (with an arbitration provision) to arbitrate a dispute with the non-signatory. Can a non-signatory do this? Yes, under certain circumstances. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

May 16, 2018 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In the recent case of In Re Langlois/Novicki Variance Denial, 175 A.3d 1222, 2017 VT 76 (2017), the Vermont court addressed the question of whether a property owner could enforce – by equitable estoppel principles – a representation by a town zoning administrator that no permit or variance was needed for the property owner’s proposed construction. In that case, a landowner wanted to add a pergola to an existing concrete patio on his land. During a social visit at the property, the property owner asked the town zoning administrator if he needed a permit. The town zoning administrator told the property owner that no permit was needed. The property owner thereafter showed the zoning administrator a sketch of the planned construction, and again asked if a permit was required. The town zoning administrator looked at the sketch and repeated his prior advice that no permit was needed. The property owner then spent $33,000 to build the pergola. After incurring the expense, the property owner was advised that the structure violated zoning regulations. The property owner requested a variance, which the zoning board denied. The Court held that the town was estopped from requiring removal of the pergola. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES