Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

2022 California Construction Law Update

December 27, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s been a trying year as we approach the end of 2021. From the pandemic approaching nearly two years to concerns regarding climate change to the impact of inflation on everything from the cost of groceries to housing affordability. During the first half of the 2021-2022 legislative session, a total of 2,421 bills were introduced in 2021 of which 836 made it to the Governor’s desk and 770 were signed into law. This is up from the 2,223 bills introduced in 2020 of which 428 bills made it to the Governor’s desk and 372 were signed into law, due in large part, to the fact that legislators were not required to shelter-in-place as they were in 2020. Not surprisingly, for the construction industry, many of the bills were focused on the hot topics of the year including housing affordability and climate change. However, there were also the typical changes to project delivery methods and a few changes to the Licensing Law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
The U.S. District Court in Alabama certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: Is damage to a project caused by faulty workmanship "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence"? With some qualification, the Connecticut Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Capstone Building Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886 (Conn. June 11, 2013). Captsone Development agreed to coordinate and supervise construction on a building at the University of Conneticut. Capstone Building was the general contractor. UConn secured an OCIP policy from American Motorist Insurance Company ("AMICO"). More than three years after completion, UConn notified the insureds of alleged defects in the project, including elevated levels of carbon monoxide. The source of the leak was the individual hot water heaters in residential units and insufficient draft of exhaust from the heater.Other defects were found during an investigation. The insureds tendered to AMICO. Coverage was denied because the liability arose out of the insureds' own work.The insureds settled with UConn, paying $1 million each. The insureds then sued AMICO in Alabama and the question was certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Montana Significantly Revises Its Product Liability Laws

May 22, 2023 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
On May 4, 2023, Montana changed its product liability laws when the Governor signed SB 216, which was effective upon passage and applies to claims that accrue on or after May 4, 2023. Among the changes is the adoption of a sealed container defense and the application of comparative negligence principles in strict liability actions. Montana also adopted a defense based on certain actions not being brought within 10 years. In addition, Montana adopted a rebuttable presumption with respect to a product’s defective condition. A jury must be informed about this rebuttable presumption with respect to certain warnings claims, premarket licensing procedures or claims involving drugs and/or medical devices. The changes to the Montana Code are further described below.

In situations where there are multiple defendants, a defendant in a strict liability or breach of warranty action may now assert, as a defense, that the damages of the claimant were caused in full or in part by a person with whom the claimant has settled or released from liability. See MCA § 27-1-703(6)(a) (as revised). Comparative negligence or fault defenses are also available in actions against sellers, even where there are not multiple defendants. See MCA § 27-1-719(4)(e) (discussing a seller’s defenses in situations other than multiple defendant situations) (as revised).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

October 02, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce? You can even hold the service… or at least proof of it! In a dispute over the construction of a Burger King restaurant in Tupelo, Mississippi, a state court suit by the owner against its general contractor and architect was removed to federal court by one of the defendant parties, on the basis of the diversity of citizenship of the defendant parties from the plaintiff, per 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). For its part, plaintiff, upon achieving service of its state court complaint against the various defendants, filed a proof of service as to the party which sought to remove the case, but not as to the other defendants (even though the other defendants were served). Once the case was removed to federal court and after the deadline for removal has passed, plaintiff sought to have the matter remanded based on the lack of the consent of the entirety of the defendant group to the removal, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (“When a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

The Status of OSHA’s Impending Heat Stress Standard

May 30, 2022 — Stephen E. Irving - ConsensusDocs
There has been much talk in the last several months about OSHA’s intent to establish a national standard to prevent heat-related injury and illness. OSHA’s Region VI, covering the states of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico[1], has had a regional emphasis program dealing with the hazards of heat stress for more than two decades, and much of the talk about a new national standard suggests modeling some aspects of the standard after the Region VI program. Region VI’s long-standing program emphasizes water, rest, and shade; acclimatization; and responding to medical emergencies. In October 2021, OSHA issued its advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for Heat Injury and Prevention. The ANPRM rulemaking established a new Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Work Group within the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.com

DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise

February 18, 2015 — James Yoder, Michael Onufrak and Siobhan Cole – White and Williams LLP
On Feb. 5, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, per Judge Brendan L. Shannon, entered proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the former president and CEO of Ultimate Escapes Inc., James M. Tousignant, and its chairman, Richard Keith, after determining that Tousignant’s actions in negotiating and executing a controversial asset purchase agreement were protected by the business judgment rule, despite the demise of the company a short time later. The failure of a business strategy, in and of itself, does not create liability on the part of the former directors and officers of a bankrupt company. Background Ultimate Escapes was a luxury destination club that provided its members with access to high-end vacation residences around the world. Unfortunately, Ultimate Escapes’ business suffered greatly from the economic downturn that began in 2008, and on Sept. 20, 2010, Ultimate Escapes filed voluntary petitions for relief pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys James Yoder, Michael Onufrak and Siobhan Cole Mr. Yoder may be contacted at yoderj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Onufrak may be contacted at onufrakm@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Cole may be contacted at coles@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

DOJ to Prosecute Philadelphia Roofing Company for Worker’s Death

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
While Construction Dive reported that it’s rare for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute employers for on-the-job deaths, the DOJ “plans to prosecute the owner of a Philadelphia roofing company for alleged crimes that the government claims led to the death of a construction worker.” According to Construction Dive, James J. McCullaugh, owner of James J. McCullagh Roofing Inc. has been accused of lying to US. Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigators “in an attempt to cover up his company’s failure to provide required fall protection for a man – Mark T. Smith – who died after falling 45 feet from a church roof in 2013. Two other workers said no fall protection was provided.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

September 03, 2019 — Michael Francis Lenhardt & Burks A. Smith, III - Traub Lieberman
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman Partners Michael Lenhardt and Burks Smith won a Directed Verdict at trial in a dispute over Sinkhole Loss coverage in Broward County Circuit Court. The lawsuit arose out of a claim for Breach of Contract involving an alleged “failed repair” of a 2005 sinkhole at the insureds’ property. The Plaintiffs argued that their Policy Limits did not apply because the carrier allegedly undertook the subsurface repairs, relying on Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., 920 So.2d 832 (Fla. 4thDCA 2006). The Plaintiffs asserted that because the insurance company allegedly hired the below ground repair company, a “new contract” was formed, and the Plaintiffs should be entitled to limitless repairs to their home, notwithstanding the Policy Limits. This argument obviously presented the carrier with very significant exposure. Attorneys Lenhardt and Smith provided a vigorous defense for the insurance company at trial, during which they presented the jury with evidence that the carrier did not, in fact, hire the subsurface repair company. They further established to the jury that the insureds actually signed a contract with the repair company directly, and that the defendant did not invoke the Our Option repair clause of the Policy. After the Plaintiffs rested their case, Mr. Lenhardt and Mr. Smith moved the Court for entry of a directed verdict. The defense argued to the Court that the Plaintiffs could not prove their case to the jury based upon the facts presented as a matter of law, thus entitling the insurance company to a defense verdict. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Francis Lenhardt, Traub Lieberman and Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman Mr. Lenhardt may be contacted at mlenhardt@tlsslaw.com Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES