Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

October 02, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision finding the policy's collapse coverage did not apply. Cmty. Garage v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2018 Mich. App. LEXIS 2680 (Mich. Ct. App. June 19, 2018). The insured operated a truck repair business. In June 2016, the insured's place of business sustained damage due to failure of several trusses providing structural support to the building's roof. The failure was due to latent construction defects leading to an insufficient load bearing capacity. The roof began to sag while one of the walls bulged outward due to the sudden pressure overload. The insured hired a construction firm to install temporary shoring to support the roof and prevent further damage. All of the building's walls remained standing and, although the roof sagged, it also remained intact. However, the building could not be safely occupied until repairs were completed. 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

Sometimes you Need to Consider the Coblentz Agreement

January 19, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Since insurance, particularly liability insurance, is such an important component when it comes a construction project, understanding certain nuances such as a Coblentz Agreement (a what kind of agreement agreement?!?—keep reading) becomes helpful. If there is a construction defect claim / lawsuit, the implicated parties (e.g., contractor, design professional, subcontractor, sub-consultants) are going to tender the claim / lawsuit to their respective liability insurer. This is what they should be doing – notifying the insurer so that the insurer can defend them from the claim / lawsuit and indemnify them from covered damages associated with the claim / lawsuit. 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

Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

June 15, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Public payment bonds (excluding FDOT payment bonds) are governed under Florida statute s. 255.05. As it pertains to venue—the location to sue a public payment bond–the statute provides in relevant portion: (5) In addition to the provisions of chapter 47, any action authorized under this section may be brought in the county in which the public building or public work is being construction or repaired. *** (1)(e) Any provision in a payment bond…which restricts venue of any proceeding relating to such bond…is unenforceable. Now, what happens if a subcontractor sues only a payment bond but its subcontract with the general contractor contains a mandatory venue provision? For example, what if the general contractor is located in Lee County and the subcontract contains a venue provision for Lee County, the project is located in Collier County, the subcontractor is located in Miami-Dade County, and the surety issues bonds in Miami-Dade County? Does venue have to be in Lee County per the mandatory venue provision? 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

OSHA Issues Final Rule on Electronic Submission of Injury and Illness Data

September 25, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued its final rule (Final Rule) on electronic submission of injury and illness information. The Final Rule applies to employers with 100 or more employees in certain high-hazard industries, including construction, and requires such employers to electronically submit injury and illness information to OSHA on a yearly basis. If you fall into that category, here’s what you need to know to comply: Who do the Final Rules apply to? The Final Rules apply to companies with 100 or more employees in certain high-hazard industries. This includes construction companies with 100 or more employees working on federal construction projects. The “100 or more employees” threshold applies to companies with 100 or more employees at any time during the previous calendar year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

January 04, 2023 — White and Williams LLP
On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2022 N.C. LEXIS 1122 (Dec. 16, 2022), in which it addressed coverage issues arising out of claims by individuals alleging injury from exposure to benzene contained in the insured’s products. Affirming in part and reversing in part the intermediate appellate court’s decision, the court held: (1) an “exposure trigger” applied; (2) defense and indemnity costs were subject to pro-rata allocation; and (3) vertical exhaustion applied to the duty to defend under certain umbrella policies. Two justices concurred in part and dissented in part. I. Background In Radiator Specialty, the insured (RSC) was named in hundreds of underlying suits arising from individual plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to benzene contained in its products. Between 1971 and 2012, RSC was insured under primary, umbrella and excess liability policies issued by various insurers. In 2013, RSC sued the insurers in North Carolina state court, seeking coverage for approximately $45 million in defense and indemnity costs incurred for the underlying claims. In 2016, the trial court decided motions for summary judgment on a number of coverage issues. Following a bench trial in 2018, the trial court entered final judgment, which required the insurers to reimburse $1.8 million of RSC’s past costs. The rulings were appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in 2020. In 2021, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted RSC’s and certain insurers’ petitions for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

How VR and AR Will Help in Remote Expert Assistance

June 10, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
The speed and quality of maintenance and repair are critical in the modern, technology-packed built environment. Consequently, these were considered in an experimental project that tested how remote expert assistance using VR and AR technologies could help improve the productivity of field service. I’m in a hall overlooking white mountain tops. It’s snowing. In front of me stands an avatar that explains to me what we can do together in this virtual space. He jumps away but I can still hear his voice from behind me. He fetches a chair and hands it to me. I grab it and inspect it. The next moment, a video starts playing on the wall. Later, my host shows me how to draw in three dimensions, how to make sticky notes, how to share a PC desktop, and how to use other collaboration tools. This experience took place at FAKE Production, a Helsinki-based digital image, animation, and VR/AR studio. With VR glasses and hand-held controllers, I had tried out Glue, their universal collaboration platform. This is a soon-to-be-released service that you can use with VR/AR gear and on mobile and desktop devices. Glue is also one of the solutions tested in an experimental project called Expert assistance using VR and AR glasses. In this project, Sovelto, a Finnish educational company, wanted to explore the possibilities of using VR and AR solutions for field service. Over ten organizations took part in the project, which received funding from KIRA-digi, the national built environment digitalization program. 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

2015 California Construction Law Update

December 31, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Over 2,200 bills were introduced during the second and final year of the 2013-2014 legislative session of which 931 were signed into law. For the design and construction industry, the end of the second session, like the end of the first session, saw a number of new prevailing wage bills signed into law, which again reflected the strong Democratic majorities in both the Assembly and Senate. The end of the second session also saw the enactment of laws consolidating several existing design-build authorization sections and extending the 5% cap on retention for public works projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

October 02, 2023 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
A liquidated-damages clause was not enforced in a recent case before the Georgia Court of Appeals. The clause did not contain standard provisions that would normally allow a trial court to enforce the clause as written. As a result, the trial court looked beyond the contract to determine whether the City satisfied the requirements for enforcement of the liquidated-damages clause. Below are the relevant excerpts. City of Brookhaven v. Multiplex, LLC, A23A0843, 2023 WL 4779591 (Ga. Ct. App. July 27, 2023) Here, the Contract provides for “Liquidated Damages at the rate of $1,000.00 per calendar day” in the last paragraph of the Scope of Work addendum. The Contract lacks, however, any language indicating that the liquidated damages were not intended to be a penalty. See Fuqua Const. Co. v. Pillar Dev., Inc., 293 Ga. App. 462, 466, 667 S.E.2d 633 (2008) (rejecting use of parol evidence where the parties “explicitly agreed” in “unambiguous contract language” that the liquidated damages were not a penalty). Absent such language, the court can look to parol evidence in the record to determine the effect the provision was intended to have. See J.P. Carey Enterprises, 361 Ga. App. at 391-392 (1) (b), 864 S.E.2d 588 (looking to “extrinsic evidence” such as emails, documents, and deposition testimony to determine whether the damages provision at issue was a penalty); see also Gwinnett Clinic, Ltd. v. Boaten, 340 Ga. App. 598, 602-603, 798 S.E.2d 110 (2017) (“Shah’s testimony also suggested that one purpose of the liquidated damages provision was to deter employees from breaching the agreement”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES