Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

$48 Million Award and Successful Defense of $135 Million Claim

June 04, 2024 — Peckar & Abramson
Peckar & Abramson is proud to have represented one of the nation’s largest general contractors in the achievement of a $48 million award in its favor and the denial of a $135 million claim against it in Federal Court in the Middle District of Florida on May 3, 2024 arising out of the FDOT’s $2.3 billion reconstruction of I-4, a P3 project and the Department’s largest project ever in the State of Florida. After a 2-week bench trial, P&A secured the favorable decision which found that the general contractor client was entitled to recover $48 million on its affirmative claim against the party who initiated the lawsuit and that it did not breach its fiduciary duties and was not grossly negligent as was claimed which resulted in a denial of the initiating party’s $135 million claim in its entirety. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson

Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The cost of construction insurance for New York City’s School Construction Authority is about to go up and the city’s scaffold law is to blame. As the cost of possible injuries has gone up, so has the cost of covering the insurance. The SCA’s current policy ends at the end of the year, and it’s expected that its insurance costs will triple, with the next two years costing about $650 million. The rising cost of insurance was compared by authority officials to the cost of 10 new schools. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

December 02, 2015 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Glenn T. Barger, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., & David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin
As anticipated in a prior CGDRB 2015 Bulletin that discussed the Fifth Appellate District Court’s noteworthy opinion in McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist), the California Supreme Court has granted the petition for review of the McMillin Albany decision. The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict of authority presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court’s opinion in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and the Fifth Appellate District Court’s rejection of the Liberty Mutual holding in McMillin Albany. In Liberty Mutual, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims [violations of SB 800’s building standards] that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB 800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all construction defect claims arising out new residential construction are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act [SB800], including specifically, the requirement that the claimant provide the builder with notice and an opportunity to repair prior to filing a lawsuit. According to the Court, SB 800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. The holdings in Liberty Mutual and McMillin Albany present a conflict of authority that the California Supreme Court has appropriately deemed worthy of review. The parties will now be permitted to file briefs on the merits and amicus briefs will certainly be submitted by the defense and plaintiff bars. Our firm will be closely monitoring this case, the outcome of which will significantly impact pre-litigation construction defect claims going forward. We will provide updates as to further activities and the Supreme Court’s decision. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger, Jon A. Turigliatto and David A. Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Drill Rig Accident Kills Engineering Manager, Injures Operator in Philadelphia

August 10, 2021 — Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-Record
Philadelphia officials and engineering firm Langan have confirmed that a company project manager and geotechnical engineer died July 6 in a nighttime drill rig accident while he was on site to inspect foundation work for a pedestrian bridge project. Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Robert and Tracy Samosky of Spanishburg, West Virginia have filed a lawsuit claiming that the improper delivery of their modular home caused defects and damages, preventing them from actually using their home. The couple purchased a modular home from J&M Quality Construction for a home designed and built by Mod-U-Kraf Homes. They are suing the two firms for $50,000 in damages, reports the West Virginia Record. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A new ten-acre neighborhood is springing up in northeast Boulder, Kalmia38. The development is being built by Markel Homes Construction Co. and Coast to Coast Residential Development. The first homes should be ready for residents by the second quarter of 2014, with building continuing on the project for about three years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Appeals Court Overruled Insured as Additional Insured on Subcontractor’s Commercial General Liability Policy

April 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Scott R. Murphy and Clifford J. Shapiro of Barnes & Thornburg LLP in the publication National Law Review analyzed the findings of the Mississippi case Carl E. Woodward, LLC v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance: “the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overruled the district court’s determination that a general contractor was insured as an additional insured on its subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy for claims arising out of the allegedly defective work performed by the subcontractor.” “This case underscores the fact that many standard policy forms do not include completed operations coverage for additional insureds,” Murphy and Shapiro declared. “Owners and contractors that desire to have such coverage therefore need to check their contracts to be make sure the contract language requires completed operations coverage for additional insureds, and they also need to obtain and review the actual additional insured endorsement contained in their subcontractors’ insurance policies before work commences to make sure that the required completed operations insurance coverage is provided.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

August 17, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES