Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

2018 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!

July 18, 2018 — Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP
Wilke Fleury is thrilled to announce our 2018 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars! Twelve of our talented attorneys have been honored with the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars distinctions. Super Lawyers® is a service of the Thomson Reuters, Legal Division. Each year, the research team at Super Lawyers® undertakes a rigorous multi-phase selection process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent evaluation of candidates by the attorney-led research staff, a peer review of candidates by practice area and a good-standing and disciplinary check. The Super Lawyers list represents only five percent of lawyers in California and Rising Stars reflects 2.5% of the state’s up-and-coming lawyers. Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2018 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP

The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

September 28, 2017 — Philip M. Brown-Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion! Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com

Anatomy of a Data Center

October 28, 2024 — Robert A. James & Matt Olhausen - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Traditional and social media are thick with reports and predictions of the remarkable increase in size, power consumption and significance of data centers. Not only technology companies but real estate and energy developers, investment funds, lenders, and professionals of all stripes are in or determined to enter this sector. Our inboxes are full—it’s data center this, data center that. But what exactly is a data center? What infrastructure, technology and human resources come together to create and sustain one of these localized points of computation? By understanding their components, we can glean some understanding of the business, public policy and (our focus) legal issues that arise before and during their operation. In this article, we cite key characteristics of a reference Blackacre Data Center, with occasional glances at other (real) structures that offer variations on themes. Blackacre is a composite of several centers we have encountered in our law practice. These facilities differ widely in size, location and functions, so your mileage will vary. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Matt Olhausen, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

LEEDigation: A Different Take

June 22, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
This weeks Guest Post Friday at Musings is a real treat. Sara Sweeney is a registered architect, LEED AP and GreenFaith Fellow in religious environmental leadership. Her 18-year architectural career reflects her passion and commitment to sustainable building design and stewardship of our natural environment. She is the founder of EcoVision LLC, a solutions-based research and consulting firm, grounded in sustainable design practices, environmental stewardship, and building science. Dude Every so often I come across a word that drives me nuts. A few years ago it was ‘Dude.’ Lately, it is ‘LEEDigation.’ It’s a new term to “describe green building litigation” coined by Chris Cheatham, a fine person and very knowledgeable attorney in construction law and a LEED AP as well. Per his definition, LEEDigation “could involve disputes arising from green building certification, could arise if a project fails to obtain government incentives or satisfy mandates for green building construction, or could simply result from improperly designed or constructed green building strategies. It all makes sense. So why does it drive me nuts? Round Peg. Square Hole. Although I fully understand why the term was coined, such a term keeps us in flat world, that is, the world of conventional design and construction. Designing and building to LEED standards, or rather, just designing and building sustainably in general, whether to meet a third party standard or not, is a different way than what we have been used to. Period. Whereas our conventional way is focused on first costs, and sees the building more as a commodity than the human imprint and legacy on Earth, sustainable design and building is a process which, at its best, considers the economic impacts of NOT building responsibly. It is a more holistic way of building and balances long-term costs and implications with short term costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Lost Productivity or Inefficiency Claim Can Be Challenging to Prove

May 02, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
One of the most challenging claims to prove is a lost productivity or inefficiency claim. There is an alluring appeal to these claims because there are oftentimes intriguing facts and high damages. But the allure of the presentation of the claim does not compensate for the actual burden of proof in proving the lost productivity or inefficiency claim, which will require an expert. And they really are challenging to prove. Don’t take it from me. A recent Federal Claims Court opinion, Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, (Fed.Cl. 2022), that I also discussed in the preceding article, exemplifies this point. To determine lost productivity or inefficiency, the claimant’s expert tried three different methodologies. First, the expert looked at industry standard lost productivity factors such as those promulgated by the Mechanical Contractor’s Association. However, the claimant was not a mechanical contractor and there is a bunch of subjectivity involved when using these factors. The expert decided not to use such industry standard factors correctly noting they provide value when you are looking at a potential impact prospectively, but once you incur actual damages and have real data, it is not an accurate measure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

A Court-Side Seat: Recent Legal Developments at Supreme and Federal Appeals Courts

December 18, 2022 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
This is a review of initial Supreme Court and Federal Appeals Courts oral arguments and other matters in October 2022. Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court Michael Sackett, et ux., v. Environmental Protection Agency The Supreme Court’s 2022 term began on October 3, 2022, with this important oral argument. For many years, the petitioner has encountered EPA opposition to the construction of a home on his property located near a lake in Idaho. The agency insists that the land is subject to federal regulatory jurisdiction, in that a Clean Water Act permit will be needed before work can proceed. Several courts have already weighed in on this issue; whether the land in question is considered a regulated “wetlands” pursuant to the “significant nexus” test developed by the Court in the Rapanos case decided in 2006. The oral argument was fairly long and spirited. The justices appear to believe that the “significant nexus” is unworkable because in many instances it provides little or no guidance to landowners as to whether their property may be subject to federal jurisdiction, and thus subject to civil and even criminal penalties. Justice Kavanaugh remarked that “this case is going to be important for wetlands throughout the country and we have to get it right.” Later, Justice Gorsuch lamented the fact that implementing a test for federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act test is so difficult to apply: “If the federal government doesn’t know [if a property is adjacent to navigable water and is regulated,] “does a reasonable landowner have any idea.” The issue is very difficult to resolve, and the Congress has indicated that is has no interest in entering this regulatory thicket. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

February 15, 2018 — Matthew Peng – Construction Law Blog
If you are reading this blog, my guess is that you know what excavation is and why it is important to the construction process. However, what you may not know is the complicated California law that governs this process. The statute for an excavation contractor to be familiar with is California Government Code section 4216, et seq. However, like most things worth pursuing, that is easier said than done. Section 4216 contains several layers of prerequisites and requirements. This article will explore the notice requirement. Section 4216.1 requires “every operator of a subsurface installation” to share costs of a regional notification center. This is necessary because Section 4216.2(b) requires “an excavator planning to conduct an excavation shall notify the appropriate regional notification center of the excavator’s intent to excavate” before beginning that excavation. The statute lists two regional notification centers: the Underground Service Alert—Northern California and the Under Ground Service Alert—Southern California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Peng, Gordon & Rees
Mr. Peng may be contacted at mpeng@grsm.com

Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

April 15, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick, and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ong v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. B252773, filed 4/3/15), a California appeals court ruled that a vacancy exclusion limited to damage caused by “vandalism or malicious mischief” did not bar coverage for damage to a vacant property caused by a warming fire purposely started by a transient that got out of control and spread to other parts of the property. In Ong, the insured’s rental premises had been vacated by tenants and the utilities turned off. Nearly two years later, the insured submitted a claim for fire damage that had just occurred. An investigator reported finding signs that a squatter had been living in the building, stating that: “[I]t appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant.” The investigator found firewood and a mattress, and concluded that holes burned in the floor were the result of the squatter attempting to throw burning wood out the door when the fire got out of control. The policy excluded vandalism as follows: “We do not cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . 4. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days . . . just before the loss. A dwelling under construction is not considered vacant.” The term “Vandalism” was not defined in the policy. The insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion, stating: “Our investigation indicates that this loss was the result of vandalism. A trespasser entered the vacant dwelling and intentionally set a fire on the kitchen floor.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick and Colin T. Murphy Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES