Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in a construction defect case, Lee v. Gorham. Minnesota law requires that contractors warranty that the home will be free of major construction defects during the first ten years, but claims must “be brought within two years of the discovery of the breach.” The Lees received a home inspection report in 2009 that identified a variety of defects, including “several possible structural defects.” The court noted that the report stated, “Contact your builder in writing of the findings, and discuss your options with an attorney.” The Lees contacted the contractor, Gorham Builders. After initial silence, Gorham told the Lees that problems would “have to be ‘turned over to [the] insurance company.’” Rodney noted in his testimony that he had two choices, to either sue Gorham or hire an outside contractor. Mr. Lee had concluded that the legal costs were likely to be equal to the cost of the contractor. In June, 2011, the Lees changed their mind about bringing a suit. Gorham sought and received a summary judgment dismissing the case on the grounds that too much time had passed since the Lees learned of the construction defect. The Lees appealed. The appeals court upheld the summary judgment. The Lees claimed that the 2009 home inspection did not alert them of a “major construction defect,” but the court concluded that the language of the report fit within the Minnesota statutory definition of a “major construction defect.” Nor was the appeals court convinced that at any time did Gorham provide “assurances that it would cure the defects to the home.” Within the same month as the May 2009 inspection, Gorham had made it clear that any problems were an issue for the insurance company. Thus, the appeals court concluded that the Lee’s equitable-estoppel argument was without merit. The Lees also brought to appeal the new argument that they did not realize they were dealing with “major construction defects” until they received a subsequent home inspection in 2011. The court noted that the second report does not detail “new defects or structural issues not identified in the 2009 inspection report.” In addition to being “without merit,” the court noted that this claim was not made in the district court and so the appeals court “need not consider this issue on appeal.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

February 15, 2021 — David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the case of NextSun Energy Littleton, LLC v. Acadia Ins. Co., the United States District Court of Massachusetts held that once direct physical damage from a covered peril causes a covered business interruption loss, any increase in the duration of such business interruption, due to the enforcement of an ordinance or law, extends the coverage period provided for lost income. The Court further held that a policy exclusion for business interruption due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law not in force at the time of the loss only applies when the ordinance or law itself, not the enforcement action that it authorizes, was not in force at the time of the loss. The case involved a solar panel company, NextSun Energy Littleton (NextSun), that operated solar panel arrays providing electricity to the town of Littleton, Massachusetts. Due to a fire, 88 of the solar panels were damaged, and the Town immediately issued a “red-tag” order halting all energy-generating activity pending a safety inspection. The plaintiff purchased insurance for its panels along with “Energy Generating Income” (EGI) coverage, from the defendant, Acadia Ins. Co. (Acadia). The EGI policy covered “direct physical loss or damage” to “renewable energy generating equipment” and also covered the actual loss of surplus power income incurred during the interruption period. However, it excluded interruption of energy-generating income “caused by the enforcement of any ordinance, law, or decree … not in force at the time of loss.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com

The Future of Construction Work with Mark Ehrlich

February 19, 2024 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In this episode of the AEC Business podcast, I had the pleasure of speaking with Mark Ehrlich, a veteran of the construction industry from the USA and the author of “The Way We Build: Restoring Dignity to Construction Work.” Our conversation delved into the evolving landscape of construction work and the challenges faced by construction workers today. Mark shared his extensive background, starting as a carpenter and rising through the ranks to become the head of a 25,000-member union organization. His experience spans decades, and he has authored three books and numerous articles on labor issues. The historical labor shifts We discussed the historical shift from a predominantly unionized construction workforce to the current bifurcated system in the US, where union strongholds in the north contrast sharply with the non-union, lower-wage environments in the south and other regions. Mark highlighted the issues of wage theft, declining safety standards, and the exploitation of undocumented workers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

October 16, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Economic damages, unlike non-economic damages (such as those in personal injury disputes), need to rest on a reasonable basis. Economic damages are those routinely seen in a construction dispute. These damages cannot be based on conjecture or guesswork and need to be supported by competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, the economic damages will be deemed too speculative because they are not reasonably quantifiable. I recently discussed a case involving the professional boxer Canelo Alvarez that was sued by a former promoter for unjust enrichment. Although the promoter recovered a jury verdict for unjust enrichment damages against Canelo Alvarez, the verdict was reversed because the methodology utilized by the promoter to demonstrate damages was speculative. This is definitely not what a plaintiff wants to happen after prevailing at the trial level! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

October 09, 2018 — Richard Fechner, GHD - Engineering News-Record
The promise of public-private partnerships (P3s) seems irresistible. The $4.5-trillion that the American Society of Civil Engineers says the U.S. must spend on at-risk infrastructure by 2025 is a backlog beyond the collective means of local, state and federal governments to fund and deliver. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Fechner, GHD, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Drone Use On Construction Projects

June 05, 2023 — Brent N. Mackay - ConsensusDocs
The use of drones, or small unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”), has become common throughout the construction industry in all phases of construction, including pre-construction, progress of the work, project closeout, and maintenance. This article examines the federal regulations related to drone use, as well as considerations for construction professionals related to state and local laws, project location, and weather issues. Federal Regulations Regardless of the state in which the project is located, companies and persons operating commercial drones must observe regulations promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), which has the exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety, airspace navigation, and air traffic control. Reprinted courtesy of Brent N. Mackay, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Mackay may be contacted at bmackay@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nevada Update: Nevada Commissioner of Insurance Updates Burning Limits Statute with Emergency Regulation

September 06, 2023 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Following significant backlash in reaction to its enactment of legislation prohibiting enforcement of any provisions in liability insurance policies dictating that defense costs are included within the limits of insurance, the Nevada Division of Insurance issued an emergency regulation further clarifying the law.1 The regulation modifies two key aspects of the original law:

The term “policy of liability insurance,” as used in the statute, shall only mean those casualty insurance policies offered by insurers authorized under NRS 680A.060 and NRS 694C.230 to issue third-party liability insurance. In other words, the statute’s restrictions on eroding limits will no longer apply to “non-admitted” insurers.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

California Mechanics’ Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground

July 27, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
People do the darnedest things. The next case, Carmel Development Company v. Anderson, Case No. H041005, 6th District Court of Appeals (April 30, 2020), involving a 10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements, takes us down some well traveled paths but also covers some new ground. Carmel Development Company v. Anderson Carmel Development Company, Inc. provided design and construction services at a luxury subdivision known as Monterra Ranch located in Monterey under an oral contract with developer Monterra LLC which spanned over more than a decade. Between 1996 and 2008, Carmel was involved in the infrastructure design and construction of the subdivision including lot design and layout, the location of building envelopes on each lot, water and sewage system layout and design, and roadway design, construction and repair. When roughly half of the lots were developed and sold Monterra ran out of money and Carmel sued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES