Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Appeals Court Rules that CGL Policy Doesn’t Cover Subcontractors’ Faulty Work

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Business Insurance, in J-McDaniel Construction Co. Inc. v. Mid-Continental Casualty Co. et al., an appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that a “construction company's commercial general liability insurance policy does not provide coverage for faulty workmanship or subcontractor negligence.” “We are not at liberty to disregard the binding law of the state, nor may we substitute our judgment for that of the Arkansas Supreme Court,” said the panel, in affirming the lower court ruling, as quoted in Business Insurance. Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance pointed out that “[l]ast year, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati held that a subcontractor's allegedly faulty preparation of a building pad, which resulted in subsequent settling and structural damage to the building constructed on top of it, was not an occurrence within the standard coverage language of a CGL policy.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

August 13, 2019 — Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocs
Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

February 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The city of Norristown, Pennsylvania has already paid “$3.4 million for construction repairs and legal expenses” for the 26-unit condominium on 770 Sandy Street, according to The Times Herald. Therefore city officials recently declared that “they will no longer pay the $40,000 annual cost for maintenance, electricity and repairs” for the building. “At some point, the folks that own it have to step up and take responsibility for it,” Norristown Council President William Caldwell told The Times Herald. “No later than February 28, the municipality will cease to provide or pay for maintenance of 770 Sandy Street.” Previously, Norristown had received court orders to repair the building, after numerous construction defects turned up including “missing firestops in numerous walls, missing grout and steel rebar in block-wall, emergency stair towers, faulty electrical wiring and no provision for firestopping in the first-floor garage ceiling.” City officials “were faulted by Montgomery County Common Pleas Court judges for not properly inspecting the construction.” Charles Madracchia, past Customers Bank attorney and current Homeowner attorney, is “continuing active litigation in both federal and state court.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In 1994, after the Northridge earthquake lead to the deaths of 57 people and $2 billion in damage, the Los Angeles City Council considered making a list of buildings that were vulnerable to failure in earthquakes and mandating that they be made seismically sound. The measure did not come to pass. Tom LaBonge, a member of the council, is seeking to finally get that inventory done. According to the Los Angeles Times, thousands of buildings in Los Angeles were constructed with a ground floor level that is insufficient to support the rest of the building in the event of an earthquake. These “soft-story” buildings can be reinforced to better resist earthquakes, but first they need to be identified. Owners of apartment buildings worry about the cost of the retrofits, suggesting that if the city is going to come up with mandatory retrofits, they should also “help property owners pay for it,” as Beverly Kenworthy, the executive director of the Los Angeles division of the California Apartment Association told the Times. San Francisco recently did require retrofits, finding about 3,000 apartment buildings that were at seismic risk. Still, San Francisco doesn’t seem to have moved any faster than Los Angeles, as they were responding to the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, seven years before the Northridge quake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Elevators Take Sustainable Smart Cities to the Next Level

May 26, 2019 — Chris Smith - Construction Executive
From electric cars to solar panels, technology has been at the forefront of innovation in sustainability efforts. As greenhouse gas emissions continue to be a critical global concern, developing smart cities and sustainable energy practices are more important than ever. In fact, Gartner predicts that by 2020, half of all smart city objectives will be centered around climate change, resilience and sustainability. To build truly intelligent cities, we need to optimize the sharing of information at a foundational level, starting with the structures on which these cities are built. Where do we begin? The United Nations estimates that almost 40 percent of today’s global greenhouse gas emissions come from buildings. To reduce these levels, the industry needs to begin creating smarter structures that use data insights to streamline functions in the building, and this starts with the infrastructural backbone: the elevator. Reprinted courtesy of Chris Smith, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

February 24, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two important environmental cases—one that could change the approach to routine maritime charters and another that could introduce a potentially punishing permitting regime via a CWA citizen suit. Cleaning the Delaware: CITGO Asphalt Refining Company v. Frescati Shipping Company The CITGO case involves a large oil spill into the Delaware River, and who bears financial responsibility for the cleanup. CITGO chartered an oil tanker to bring Venezuelan crude oil to CITGO’s New Jersey refinery located on the Delaware River. The tanker struck a submerged and abandoned anchor within yards of the refinery, and a large and expensive oil spill resulted. In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act, both the shipper, Frescati Shipping Company, and the United States, paid for the immediate oil spill response, and CITGO was later sued for a large share of these costs based on the fact that it entered into a charter with Frescati, which obliged CITGO to provide a “safe berth.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that CITGO was liable under the principles of maritime law, meaning that CITGO was strictly liable for the spill even if no one knew that the anchor was present on the floor of the river or lurking in the waters of the Delaware River. CITGO has argued that this result is unfair and poses a threat to the maritime shipping industry if it is held to be strictly liable for this spill. It appears that this is may well be the majority rule that is applied when interpreting these routinely entered maritime charters. The Court’s decision will be immensely important to the shipping industry. 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

The OFCCP’s November 2019 Updated Technical Assistance Guide: What Every Federal Construction Contractor Should Know

March 23, 2020 — Sarah K. Carpenter - Smith Currie
The Department of Labor (“DOL”) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) issued its 148-page Updated Construction Contractor Technical Assistance Guide (the “Guide”) on November 13, 2019. A complete copy of the Guide can be found here, but the below provides a summary of what every Federal Construction Contractor should know regarding the OFCCP’s November 2019 update to its prior 2006 publication. The DOL has identified the Guide as a “self-assessment tool” to assist contractors in meeting “their legal requirements and responsibilities for equal employment opportunity by preventing violations before they occur.” However, the Guide does not create or impose new requirements for Federal Construction Contractors. Instead, the Guide provides an overview of anti-discrimination and affirmative action requirements and obligations under existing laws and regulations, and suggests best practices and guidance. Specifically, the Guide provides:

A concise summary of Federal Construction Contractors’ legal obligations under the three main laws enforced by the OFCCP: Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974;
A detailed explanation of requirements for written Affirmative Action Plans;
A clear schedule of Standard Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Construction Contract Specifications;
A reorganized recap of the sixteen affirmative action steps Federal Construction Contractors are required to implement in good-faith; and
A user-friendly roadmap of what to expect during an OFCCP audit, including a discussion of record keeping requirements.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com

Construction Defect Disputes: Know Your Measure of Damages!!!!!

January 21, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Remember this: know your measure of damages in a construction defect dispute. If you don’t, as shown below, the outcome can be unforgiving. The measure of damages is one of your most important elements of proof. You are filing suit for damages; thus, knowing what you can reasonably recovery is paramount. In a recent dispute, Bandklayder Development, LLC v. Sabga, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D91e (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), a residential developer sold a single-family house while it was under construction in an as-is purchase agreement. Post-closing, the purchasers claimed defects and served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects letter. The purchaser subsequently initiated a construction defect lawsuit. During the nonjury trial, the purchaser’s expert testified that the purchasers suffered damages approximating $323,000 calculated as of January 19, 2022 (which was the date of the expert’s report). The expert further testified that the cost to finish the incomplete/defective work increased by 35% at the date of the May 2023 trial. However, the expert never testified as to the amount of damages as of the date of the contractual breach, which at the latest, would have been in April 2018 when the notice of construction defects letter was sent (or, at its earliest, June 2017 when closing occurred). At trial, the judge entered judgment for the purchasers in the amount of about $425,0000. This was reversed on appeal with judgment to be entered in favor of the developer. Why? Because the purchasers employed the wrong measure of damages and the only thing that prevented them from introducing the right measure of damages was within their control. Harsh outcome for not applying the correct measure of damages! 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES