Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

November 07, 2022 — Ric Macchiaroli - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In April 2015, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain foreign-made crawler cranes into the United States for a period of at least 10 years. That order was the result of a 20-month investigation by the ITC, initiated by a Wisconsin-based crane manufacturer based on allegations of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation by a China-based company. Defined by powerful injunctive remedies, unique rules, and a lightning-fast docket, the ITC can help protect American industry from unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States. This post explores the traits that make the ITC an attractive venue for potential complainants. ITC Site Plan The ITC is a specialized trade court located in Washington, D.C., that has broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair trade practices. One of the ITC’s primary functions is to conduct unfair import investigations, also known as “section 337” investigations, after the authorizing statute. A section 337 investigation can be instituted based on any number of unfair acts, including, but not limited to, patent infringement (utility and design), registered and common law trademark infringement, copyright infringement (including violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), trade dress infringement, and trade secret misappropriation. Business torts such as passing off, false advertising, and tortious interference with business relations have also formed the bases of investigations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ric Macchiaroli, Pillsbury
Mr. Macchiaroli may be contacted at ric.macchiaroli@pillsburylaw.com

University of Tennessee Commits to $1.9B Capital Plan

August 07, 2023 — Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-Record
A nearly $2-billion funding plan approved by University of Tennessee trustees signals the go-ahead for 15 new capital projects at five locations including research, science and housing facilities along with a planned entertainment district for Neyland Stadium, home of the university's football team. Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

March 23, 2020 — Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Water damage, while one of the leading causes of loss under a property policy, often results in some of the most complex claims due to the intersection of exclusions, sublimits, and complex wording within the policy. One particularly difficult issue is whether water damage caused by a storm surge is covered by the flood sublimit, or under the general policy or water limit. In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s (“NJTC v. Lloyd’s”), the New Jersey Appeals Court found that the “flood” sublimit of the policy should not apply as the cause of the loss was a “named windstorm” and not a “flood.” In NJTC v Lloyd's the court was asked to determine whether a flood sublimit applied to losses sustained during Superstorm Sandy. The court found that although there was “flooding,” the water damage was more closely related to the “named windstorm”, and therefore, the $400 million policy limits should apply. The court focused its analysis on the definitions for “flood” and “named windstorm” and by applying the efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine which would apply. When reviewing the definitions within the property policies, the court determined that although the loss would qualify under the definition of “flood,” the policy also contained a definition for “named windstorm” which “more specifically encompasses the wind driven water or storm surge associated with a ‘named windstorm’”1. In addition, the policy did not specifically state that “storm surge” associated with a “named windstorm” should be considered a “flood” event and fall under the “flood” sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

May 08, 2023 — Drew M. Jorgenson & Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer Dillion
The Elimination of Judgment by Confession Following in the footsteps of Massachusetts and Florida, California recently updated California Code of Civil Procedure section 1132 which renders judgments by confession unenforceable and inadmissible in any superior court, effective January 1, 2023. The bar is not retroactive, so judgments by confession obtained or entered before January 1, 2023 are still valid. Moving forward, consider the following. What is a Judgment By Confession? A judgment by confession, also known as a confession of judgment or "cognovit" clause, is a mechanism by which a debtor agrees that a creditor may summarily obtain a legal judgment against that debtor and enforce it in the event of the debtor's breach of contract or default. In other words, it is a private admission by a debtor that they are liable for a debt without the need for a trial, and consequently, agree to forfeit very important rights. Most importantly, parties agreeing to such clauses are waiving rights such as the right to notice of the judgment and the right to assert defenses against the creditor or third party's claims. Historically, without any judicial involvement, these types of out-of-court judgments would be enforceable. Reprinted courtesy of Drew M. Jorgenson, Newmeyer Dillion and Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Jorgenson may be contacted at drew.jorgenson@ndlf.com Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Allen, TX Board of Trustees Expected to Approve Stadium Repair Plans

July 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Construction plans to fix the $60 million high school football stadium in Allen, Texas, which has been closed due to cracks discovered in the structure, is expected to be approved by the Allen School Board of Trustees, reported KHOU. The construction company and architectural firm both stated “they will cover the costs to fix everything -- which could run between $600,000 and $1 million.” The school board plans on using “$2 million in bonds for the construction, renovation, acquisition and equipment of school facilities,” and will then seek to recover the amount of repairs “from the parties responsible for defects and/or construction problems and failures.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

May 25, 2020 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is pleased to announce the election of Vincent Barbera and James Burger to the partnership. The firm has also promoted Victoria Fuller, Phyllis Ingram, William Johnston, Eric Porter, Gus Sara, Jenifer Scarcella, Lian Skaf and Brett Tishler from associate to counsel. The newly elected partners and promoted counsel represent the wide array of practices that White and Williams offers its clients, including education, finance, financial lines, insurance coverage, labor and employment, litigation, real estate, and subrogation. These accomplished lawyers have earned this advancement based on their contributions to the firm and their practices. “We are pleased to elect these two lawyers to the partnership and promote eight exceptional associates to counsel. The group demonstrates the legal talent and breadth of services White and Williams offers clients,” said Patti Santelle, Managing Partner of the firm. “The contributions of these lawyers have enhanced the growth and reputation of our firm and reflect our deep commitment to clients. We look forward to their continued success.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

August 04, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court in Colorado has determined in the case of RK Mechanical, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America that Travelers did not breach its insurance contract when it refused to cover RK Mechanical.

RK Mechanical performed an HVAC installation for a residential project for which J.E. Dunn Rocky Mountain was the general contractor. As part of the work, RK “installed approximately one hundred seventy-one CPVC flanges, which were manufactured by Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company.” Two of these flanges failed in June, 2009 leading to water damage. RK replaced the cracked flanges and engaged in water remediation. “Travelers paid Dunn and RK for the costs associated with the water damage associated with the Flange Failure.” The court notes that Travelers did not pay for the cracked flanges, however.

Subsequently, RK examined the remaining flanges, finding many cracked ones. These were replaced with new ones. Later, all the Charlotte flanges were replaced with ones from another manufacturer. RK applied for coverage.

All sides brought in their experts: “Microbac Laboratories, Inc. prepared a report on behalf of RK concluding that the Flange Failure was due, in part, to an assembly or workmanship defect in addition to manufacturing defects in the flanges. Higgins & Associates prepared a report on behalf of Travelers concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation. Plastic Failure Labs prepared a report on behalf of the flange manufacturer concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation by RK.”

At this point, Travelers denied coverage. RK sued alleging that the coverage for flange failure and water damage implicitly includes mitigation costs. The court rejected this claim, noting it would do so even if Travelers had paid for the replacement of the first two flanges. Nor did the court find that replacement of the faulty flanges is not "a covered cause of loss." RK also argued that as it was required to mitigate, Travelers was obligated to cover costs. However, the court found that “the mitigation costs expended by RK were not incurred in an effort to avoid damages from a potential breach of contract by Travelers.” The court additionally noted that despite RK’s claims, the Colorado courts have not found a common law duty to mitigate. Finally, the court found that the exclusions in the policy were not in violation of public policy.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Jersey Strengthens the Structural Integrity of Its Residential Builds

March 11, 2024 — Matthew D. Stockwell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In response to the June 2021 Champlain Towers collapse in Florida, New Jersey supplemented its State Uniform Construction Code Act by enacting legislation (effective January 8, 2024) to strengthen laws related to the structural integrity of certain residential structures in the State. The legislation applies to condominiums and cooperatives (but not single-family dwellings or primarily rental buildings) with structural components made of steel, reinforced concrete, heavy timber or a combination of such materials. The legislation also supplements the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act to ensure that associations created under the Act maintain adequate reserve funds for certain repairs. The legislation requires structural engineering inspections of any primary load-bearing system (structural components applying force to the building which deliver force to the ground including any connected balconies). Buildings that are constructed after the date the legislation was signed must have their first inspection within 15 years after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. Buildings that are 15 years or older must be inspected within two years of the legislation. Thereafter, the structural inspector will determine when the next inspection should take place, which will be no more than 10 years after the preceding inspection, except for buildings more than 20 years old which must be inspected every five years. Also, if damage to the primary load-bearing system is otherwise observable, an inspection must be performed within 60 days. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew D. Stockwell, Pillsbury
Mr. Stockwell may be contacted at matthew.stockwell@pillsburylaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES