Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Framework, Tallest Mass Timber Project in the U.S., Is On Hold

August 07, 2018 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
The tallest mass-timber building development in the U.S. is "on hold for the foreseeable future," according to the developer, named project^. The 12-story mixed-use building, known as Framework, has been under development in Portland, Ore., since 2014. Construction was first delayed a year ago and currently is postponed because of changing market conditions, which have had a negative impact on the development's bottom line. These include inflation, escalating construction costs and fluctuations in the tax credit market, says the developer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

October 21, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the insurer's objections on partiality grounds to the insured's appraiser. Biscayne Beach Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Westchester Surpus Lines Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19663 (11th Cir. Aug. 6. 2024). Storms damaged buildings at Biscayne Beach Club Condominium. Biscayne Beach filed claims with its insurer, Westchester. Unsatisfied with Westchester's payments, Biscayne Beach sued. Westchester then invoked the appraisal provision in the policy. The district court abated the action so the parties could pursue appraisal. Biscayne Beach appointed Lester Martin, its public adjuster, as its appraiser on a 10 percent contingency fee. Westchester objected because Martinez's retainer created a conflict of interest that would hinder his impartiality. Biscayne Beach then retained Blake Pyka as its appraiser. Westchester appointed its appraiser and and umpire was selected by the parties' two appraisers. 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

Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Courts have ruled differently as to whether a construction defect is or is not an “occurrence,” according to the publication Business Insurance. Four states—Colorado, Arkansas, Hawaii and South Carolina—have sought to remove ambiguity by passing statutes that define construction defect claims as occurrences. Colorado, the first state to create such a statue, passed H. B. 10-1394 in May 2010. The state legislature passed the statute “because of the complex and lengthy endorsements and exclusions facing construction professionals, according to the bill” reported Business Insurance. The article stated that “incongruous court decisions over whether construction defect claims are covered under CGL policies continue to drive uncertainty in coverage and increase litigation costs.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

December 07, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Recently, the California Bar Association (“CBA”) published Formal Opinion No. 2020-203[1] concerning a lawyer’s ethical obligations with respect to unauthorized access to electronically stored client information. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the growing trend of storing and maintaining data and information online so that employees and clients can access the data from anywhere in the world at any time. Now, in today’s working world, the reality is nearly all information and data is stored and shared digitally online for ease of access, use, and dissemination. Unfortunately, a major draw-back of this switch to a cyber paradigm is serious exposure to data breaches as a result of hacking, inadvertence, or theft. Formal Opinion No. 2020-203 outlines how a lawyer is to handle access to client confidential information and anticipation of potential security issues. This article will briefly cover the key aspects addressed in Formal Opinion No. 2020-203. What is the duty owed by a lawyer to his or her client regarding the use of technology? At the outset, the CBA reminds lawyers of the ongoing duty of competence (Rule 1.1) and the duty to safeguard clients’ confidences and secrets (Rule 1.6; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068(e)) which impose the requirement that a lawyer must have a basic understanding of the risks posed when using a given technology and (if necessary) obtain help from appropriate experts to assess those risks and take reasonable steps to prevent data breaches. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Keeping Up With Fast-moving FAA Drone Regulations

February 28, 2018 — Dick Zhang – Construction Executive Magazine
One of the biggest changes in recent years relating to commercial drone regulations has been FAA rule Part 107. Prior to 107, drone pilots were required to hold a current, manned aircraft pilot certificate, and had to pass a written, practical and oral exam to earn that credential. After 107 came into effect, a drone pilot was only required to pass a written exam to earn this commercial drone license. The majority of people working at construction companies who take the Part 107 exam don’t have any type of aviation background, so it’s recommended that they give themselves at least two hours of study a day over two weeks to prepare for the exam. This commitment allows enough time for the student to both master any prepared test materials as well as do any additional research when necessary. The Part 107 certification is good for 24 months. While the FAA hasn’t posted anything about a recertification process yet, it will need to do so soon because everyone who took the exam when it was available in September 2016 will need to be recertified by August 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dick Zhang, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Zhang may be contacted at contact@identifiedtech.com

Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

November 23, 2020 — Christopher P. Leise & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLP
After an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier. USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.” Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

June 15, 2017 — Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:

While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Miller may be contacted at gjm@sdvlaw.com

Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results

October 21, 2019 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Louisiana court recently denied an excess insurer’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the insurer’s interpretation of a pollution exclusion would lead to “absurd results.” Central Crude, Inc., a crude oil transporter company, experienced an oil pipeline leak, allegedly causing damage to property belonging to Columbia Gas Transmission Company. Columbia Gas sued Central Crude seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to compel remediation of the site. Central Crude sought coverage under a CGL primary insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. The insurer initially agreed to cover Central Crude’s “reasonable and necessary costs” relating to the incident, but later refused to defend or indemnify Central Crude for any costs incurred from the incident. As a result, Central Crude brought suit against Liberty Mutual and its excess insurer, Great American, to enforce coverage. Great American moved for summary judgment arguing coverage was excluded by the excess policy’s pollution exclusion, which precludes coverage for injury “arising out of a discharge of pollutants.” Central Crude responded arguing that the exclusion’s applicability was invalidated or at least rendered ambiguous by the Following Form Endorsements, which reflect an intent to mirror the coverage afforded under the primary Liberty Mutual policy, and because coverage appears to be specifically authorized through the Premises Operations Liability Endorsement. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES