Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Indiana Court of Appeals Holds That Lease Terms Bar Landlord’s Carrier From Subrogating Against Commercial Tenant

April 03, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Youell v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 497 (2018), the Court of Appeals of Indiana considered whether a landlord’s carrier could bring a subrogation claim against a commercial tenant for fire-related damages when the lease, which did not reference subrogation, explicitly required the landlord to maintain fire insurance coverage for the leased premises. The court held that subrogation was barred because the provision requiring the landlord to maintain fire insurance established an agreement to provide both parties with the benefits of insurance. The Youell case establishes that, in Indiana, if the lease explicitly states that the landlord will maintain fire casualty insurance for the building, the lease evidences an agreement by the parties to shift the risk of loss to the insurer. This agreement bars a landlord’s insurance carrier from subrogating against a commercial tenant in the event of a casualty. In 2013, the building owner, Greg Dotson, began leasing a commercial building to Robert Youell for his tire business, Best One Giant Tire, Inc. (collectively, Youell). The lease agreement required that the landlord maintain fire and extended coverage insurance on the building and the leased premises. The lease also required the tenant to purchase fire and extended coverage insurance for its personal property. The lease did not mention subrogation. Dotson obtained a property insurance policy through Cincinnati Insurance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

A Court-Side Seat: Appeals and Agency Developments at the Close of 2020

December 29, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
THE FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS The U.S. Court of Appeals On November 23, 2020, the court, in a 2-to-1 vote, rejected the plaintiff’s request for an emergency injunction pending appeal in the case of Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation, et al. v. Wolf. The majority held the requirement for such relief did not meet the requirements set forth in Winter v. NRDC, 555 US 7 (2008). Here, the plaintiffs allege that that the government’s construction of a border wall violates several environmental laws that were illegally waived by the Secretary of the Interior. Judge Millett dissented in part because the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. She pointed to the argument that the authority of the Secretary—or Acting Secretary—to take these actions has been successfully challenged in several federal district courts. An expedited pleading schedule was established by the court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit On November 17, 2020, in Ergon-West ,Inc. v. EPA, the court again reversed the EPA’s decision denying regulatory relief to a small refinery seeking a waiver of the renewable fuels mandate of the Clean Air Act. Ergon is a small refinery and requested relief in the basis of the economic harm that compliance would entail. In 2018, the court ruled in Ergon’s favor and remanded the case back to the agency. After relief was again denied, the court held that “Ergon has come forward with sufficient evidence undermining one aspect” of the agency’s latest decision, and the ruling was returned to EPA for additional analysis. It appears that a complicated process has become even more complicated. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
An environmental group has brought a lawsuit alleging that “[f]ederal regulators secretly and illegally revised the license for California’s last nuclear power facility — PG&E’s Diablo Canyon — to mask the aging plant’s vulnerability to earthquakes,” according to SF Gate. Friends of the Earth’s “suit claims that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. last year changed a key element of the plant’s license related to seismic safety without allowing public input as required by law — or even notifying the public at all.” However, spokesman Blair Jones claimed that “Friends of the Earth continues to mischaracterize the facts regarding seismic safety at Diablo Canyon. The facts are Diablo Canyon was built with earthquake safety at the forefront, is a seismically safe facility, and is in compliance with NRC licensing requirements.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Reminder: Always Order a Title Search for Your Mechanic’s Lien

June 02, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Mechanic’s liens are close to my heart as a construction attorney. These powerful tools for collection have been (and likely will be) discussed often here at Construction Law Musings. In fact, they rated their own page here at this little construction blog. While the form for a mechanic’s lien that is found in the Virginia Code looks simple enough, what goes into that form is key to getting past the initial stage of the mere recording of the lien and moving on to where a lien claimant wishes to go: Payment. Everything from the proper amount of the lien to the timing of filing, the parties named, type of work performed and who signs the lien can trip you up even before you get a chance to have a judge examine your payment claim. In short, this simple form has many pitfalls. On final item that is not often discussed is the description of the property and who the owner is on a project. A mistake on either of these fronts can be fatal as well. Often the “Owner” listed on the construction documents (the contracts, etc.) is not the same as the owner of the real estate to which your lien would attach. Sometimes a company may hire the general contractor as owner and either be a tenant of the property or could be the operating entity, but not the land holder. In either of these scenarios, merely naming the contract “owner” can be a mistake that could cost you your lien. The owner for lien purposes must be the land owner or there will be a problem. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

July 21, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Answering a question posed by the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court found that a suit against a employer for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of a employee who intentionally injures a third party alleges an occurrence under a CGL policy. Liberty Surplus Co. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 4063 (Cal. June 4, 2018) Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company (L&M) contracted with the school district to manage a construction project at a middle school. L&M hired Darold Hecht as an assistant superintendent on the project. In 2010, Jane Doe, a 13-year-old student at the school, sued alleging that Hecht had sexually abused her. Doe’s claims included a cause of action against L&M for negligent hiring, retaining, and supervising Hecht. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Connecticut Grapples With Failing Concrete Foundations

June 22, 2016 — Nadine M. Post – Engineering News-Record
Connecticut’s commissioner of consumer protection, Jonathan A. Harris, expects to issue a report this fall on the “potential cause or causes” of failing concrete foundations in northeastern Connecticut. To date, the state Dept. of Consumer Protection has 225 complaints about foundation troubles from owners of single-family houses built between 1983 and 2003. But other building types also are affected, says William F. Neal, a professional engineer who, since 2010, has examined 300 buildings in 19 towns. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

October 30, 2018 — John Castro - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California has now held that the Spearin doctrine applies to design-build subcontractors where the subcontractor is expected to design a portion of their work. The case is United States for the use and benefit of Bonita Pipeline, Inc., et al. v. Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC, et al. (“Bonita Pipeline”) (Case No. 3:16-cv-00983-H-AGS). In Bonita Pipeline, a subcontractor sued the general contractor and its sureties alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, declaratory relief, and recovery under the Miller Act. The subcontractor then filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the general contractor on its declaratory relief cause of action, seeking a finding that the general contractor could not shift legal responsibility for its defective plans and specifications to the subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Castro, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Castro may be contacted at jcastro@grsm.com

Safety Versus a False Sense of Security: Challenges to the Use of Construction Cranes

March 18, 2019 — Christopher Machut - Construction Executive
The history of safety is, in part, the history of resistance to safety. From transportation and travel to sports and entertainment, the safeguards taken for granted were once too allegedly controversial or costly for companies to grant to consumers. Imagine driving a car without a seatbelt or being a passenger in a minivan without side-impact airbags or anti-lock brakes, or playing football without a helmet or riding a roller coaster without a shoulder harness. Imagine, too, pulling out of parking space without a rear-view camera, unable to see passing cars or pedestrians. Cameras are now as common among compact cars as on the most uncommonly expensive sports cars and sedans. And yet, the technology that earns drivers a discount on car insurance is the same or mostly similar technology that insurers refuse to cover elsewhere. The technologies that makes parallel parking easier or easing a car into traffic a cinch is considered an extravagance on construction equipment, despite the dangers crane operators face but cannot see, despite what workers on the ground can see but not forecast, despite what cameras can record and capture. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Machut, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES