Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

McGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data Unit

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
McGraw Hill Financial announced “plans to sell a construction-data unit concentrated on the U.S. market” according to The Wall Street Journal. This follows McGraw Hill’s determination to “focus on global operations and cutting costs.” “The construction division ‘is not a business linked to the global markets,’” Douglas L. Peterson, McGraw Hill’s Chief Executive said to The Wall Street Journal. “’It's very different’ than its other units, such as Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, J.D. Power or S&P Capital IQ, with the potential for larger international footprints.” McGraw Hill’s construction division “sells commercial-real-estate information to developers and manufacturers” and “generates about $170 million in annual revenue.” The division “employs about 650 people.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

June 15, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Sunland Group, the developer, is objecting to claims that it is responsible for corrosion damage in a residential building in Gold Coast, Australia, as reported in the Courier & Mail. Residents of Q1, the world’s tallest residential tower, are suing the developer, claiming that defects and corrosion “compromise the long-term durability and appearance of” the six-year-old building.

The developer has not only denied that there are defects in the building, but has also stated that the construction contract “did not warrant that the construction would be defects-free.” Sunland claimed that corrosion was due to the homeowners association having “failed to carry out the maintenance requirements.”

Repair of the building is expected to cost millions of dollars. Sunland denies that it should pay any of that.

Read the full story…

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

Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun

April 04, 2022 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burby, 2022 NY Slip Op 22070, ¶ 1 (Sup. Ct.) Justice Richard M. Platkin of the Supreme Court of Albany County, New York examined a homeowners insurance policy and determined that a duty to defend was triggered in a case seeking recovery for injuries sustained when the insured, Burby allegedly discharged a nail gun in the bathroom of a work facility at which both Burby and the underlying plaintiff worked. Burby pled guilty to assault in the third degree for recklessly causing physical injury. MetLife, Burby’s carrier, disclaimed coverage based on lack of an occurrence, the business activities exclusion and the intentional loss exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured or injuries that are the result of the insured’s intentional and criminal acts or omissions. Justice Platkin initially reviewed the intentional loss exclusion and lack of an occurrence and found that, from a duty to defend perspective, neither provided a dispositive coverage defense. However, the court found that the broadly worded business activities exclusion, which was not the subject of MetLife’s motion and instead was the subject of a cross motion by Burby, applied to bar coverage. In doing so, the court searched the record and granted summary judgment on the issue, despite MetLife not moving for relief under the exclusion. With respect to the expected or intended prong of the intentional loss exclusion, the court found that, even if Burby did intend to pull the trigger of the nail gun, it was not pled in the underlying complaint that the harm that resulted to the plaintiff was expected or intended. As such, the court concluded that MetLife did not prove that there was no possible factual or legal basis upon which it could be found that Burby did not reasonably expect or intend to cause injury to the plaintiff. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

August 26, 2015 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (No. S205889; filed 8/20/15), the California Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, holding that notwithstanding the presence of a consent-to-assignment clause in a liability policy, Insurance Code section 520 bars an insurer from refusing to honor the insured’s assignment of coverage after a loss has taken place during the policy period. In Henkel, the Supreme Court limited the ability of corporate successors to obtain coverage under predecessors’ policies on a contract theory. The Henkel Court held that where a successor corporation contractually assumed liabilities of the predecessor corporation, the insurance benefits would not automatically follow. The Henkel Court ruled that if the predecessor company’s policy contains a consent-to-assignment clause, any assignment of insurance policy benefits to a successor corporation required the insurer’s consent. The Court said that policy benefits are not transferable choses in action unless at the time of corporate transfer they could be reduced to a monetary sum certain. The Court reasoned that historic product or environmental liabilities might not even be known to the predecessor at that time, much less reduced to a sum certain, so coverage for such risks could not be considered a transferable chose in action. Thus, where the liability was inchoate at the time of the corporate transaction, the Henkel Court said that coverage would not necessarily follow because the insurer’s duties had not yet attached. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Privette Doctrine, the Hooker Exception, and an Attack at a Construction Site

July 05, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
You don’t often hear about workers being attacked by ne’er-do-wells on a construction project. But, as they say, shite happens . . . Construction contracts often address health and safety issues, as well as site security to protect the improvement, materials, equipment and tools, as well as to protect the public from getting hit by say a large crane with a demolition ball, but site security to protect the workers from thugs, not so much. This is exactly what happened to a construction worker in Degala v. John Stewart Company (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 158 who was jumped and injured by three hoodlums who attacked him while he was working at a job site. The injured worker, an employee of a subcontractor, was covered by workers’ compensation insurance, but also brought claims against the general contractor and project owner for negligence and premises liability and they, in turn, argued they were immune from liability under the Privette doctrine. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

November 06, 2018 — Tom Ichniowski – Engineering News-Record
Congress has approved major water infrastructure legislation that authorizes $3.7 billion for new Army Corps of Engineers civil-works projects and $4.4 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency drinking-water program. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

White and Williams Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

August 26, 2015 — White and Williams LLP
Twelve White and Williams lawyers have been listed in The Best Lawyers in America 2016. Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of the quality of legal services. 2016 Best Lawyers Attorney / Practice Area Frank Bruno / Patent Law James Coffey / Mergers and Acquisitions Law Timothy Davis / Real Estate Law Joseph Foster / Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants William Hussey / Tax Law; Trusts and Estates Michael Kraemer / Employment Law - Management; Labor Law; Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Randy Maniloff / Insurance Law John Orlando / Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Thomas Rogers / Real Estate Law Joan Rosoff / Real Estate Law Craig Stewart / Insurance Law; Product Liability - Defendants William Taylor / Construction Law Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
You may contact White and Williams LLP attorneys at www.whiteandwilliams.com

Dispute Among Joint Venture Partners and Joint Venture Agreement

January 28, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a dispute involving joint venture partners and a joint venture agreement, one of the partners sued a third party (which purchased the assets of the other partner). Claims against the third party included tortious interference of the joint venture agreement between the partners, conspiracy to tortiously interfere with the joint venture agreement between the partners, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by the other partner, and conspiracy with the other partner to breach a fiduciary duty. The dispute was tried in a non-jury trial. The other partner and the third party prevailed. A few key points on the above claims asserted against the third party that failed:

Tortious interference of the contract -- Since the trial court found that the other partner did NOT breach the joint venture agreement, the cause of action for tortious interference failed. “No cause of action for tortious interference with a contract can exist in the absence of a breach.”
Conspiracy to tortiously interfere with a contract -- “If an underlying tort [e.g., tortious interference] has not been established, a count for conspiracy to commit that tort will not lie.”

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