Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Microsoft Urges the Construction Industry to Deliver Lifecycle Value

June 25, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Digitalization is changing the way that we operate and use buildings. Salla Palos is directing Microsoft towards a future that inspires innovative changes in both the mindset and the business models of AECO industry stakeholders. Salla Palos moved from Finland to the United States in July 2015 and settled down in Seattle, one of the fastest growing areas in the USA. She was versed in digitalization of construction industry in Finland as well as Europe and sought the opportunity to bring that knowledge into the US market. As the Director of Emerging Technology and Innovation for Sellen Construction, one of the largest general contractor companies in the Pacific Northwest United States, Salla started developing digital building lifecycle as a strategy to solve number of industry problems. “I zeroed in on developing digital construction strategy, re-engineering processes, and innovating how emerging technology supports digital construction. My approach was open innovation, pulling the industry along with our own digital transformation. I set up collaboration with both local and international partners to be successful in driving change and transforming AEC,” Salla recalls. 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

Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

July 25, 2022 — Sarah McBride - Bloomberg
While Elon Musk is publicly making a big deal about moving to Texas and cozying up to the governor, behind the scenes his tunnel-building venture, Boring Co., is wrangling with local authorities in the state over a host of seemingly mundane permitting issues. Since Boring bought land last May to create a research and development center in Bastrop, Texas, a rural area outside Austin, the company has put workers up on mobile homes at the site without authorized sewage facilities, failed to get air and stormwater permits and built a driveway without first getting official approval, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News through a public records request. The company’s dealings with Bastrop are yet another illustration of how Musk’s businesses often push the boundaries of or simply ignore regulations that bind other companies. In recent years his Tesla Inc. restarted production at its Fremont plant in defiance of pandemic rules to stay closed, Boring tried to build a tunnel in Los Angeles without going through an environmental review process and the US Securities and Exchange Commission is examining the disclosure of Musk’s stake in Twitter Inc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride, Bloomberg

Best Lawyers Recognizes Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Honors Four Partners as ‘Lawyers of the Year’

October 16, 2023 — Lewis Brisbois
(August 17, 2023) – Best Lawyers has selected 172 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 46 offices for its 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized four Lewis Brisbois partners on its "Lawyers of the Year" list: Akron Managing Partner David Kern (Mergers and Acquisitions Law); Newark Partner Meredith Kaplan Stoma (Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants); Philadelphia Partner Steven D. Urgo (Litigation – Insurance); and Roanoke Managing Partner John T. Jessee (Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants). Please join us in congratulating the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition! You can see the full list of attorneys named to Best Lawyers' Ones to Watch in America here. Akron, OH

Partner John F. Hill - Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants, and Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs
Partner Kerri Keller - Commercial Litigation
Managing Partner David Kern - Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Tax Law, and Trusts and Estates

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

Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit

August 24, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (No. G057796, filed 5/27/20, ord. pub. 6/18/20), a California appeals court ruled that an insurance bad faith lawsuit alleging a variety of claim handling misconduct in defending the insured was not subject to an insurer’s special Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion to strike because, while the alleged acts were generally connected to litigation, they did not include any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body and, therefore, did not constitute protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. In Trilogy Plumbing, the policyholder was sued in 33 different construction defect lawsuits, some of which Navigators defended, and others which were denied or had the defense withdrawn. The Navigators’ policies were subject to a $5,000 deductible, and Trilogy alleged that Navigators breached the contracts by “demanding deductible reimbursement amounts greater than the policies’ $5,000 stated deductible, and by seeking reimbursement of ordinary defense fees and expenses as if they were subject to deductible reimbursement,” “claiming a right to seek reimbursement from Trilogy for defense fees and expenses Navigators paid for the benefit of third-party additional insureds,” “providing conflicted defense counsel who took instructions only from Navigators without disclosing conflicts of interest,” “failing to reasonably settle cases and by withdrawing [the] defense as a strategic means of trying to force Trilogy to fund its own settlements,” “misrepresenting its deductible provisions,” “refusing to account for deductible amounts it charges and collects,” and others. 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

“I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third Parties

September 30, 2019 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Strategist
In Gables Construction v. Red Coats, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 419, Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals considered whether a contractual waiver of subrogation in the prime contract for a construction project barred a third party – a fire watch vendor hired to guard the worksite – from pursuing a contribution claim against the general contractor. The court concluded that the general contractor could not rely on the waiver of subrogation clause to defeat the contribution claim of the vendor, who was not a party to the prime contract. As noted by the court, holding that a waiver of subrogation clause bars the contribution claims of an entity that was not a party to the contract would violate the intent of the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA). When dealing with claims involving construction projects, there may exist multiple contracts between various parties that contain waivers of subrogation. The enforceability of such waivers can be limited by several factors, including the jurisdiction of the loss, the language of the waiver and the parties to the contract. In Gables Construction, Upper Rock, Inc. (Upper Rock), the owner, contracted with a general contractor, Gables Construction (GCI) (hereinafter referred to as the “prime contract”), to construct an apartment complex. After someone stole a bobcat tractor from the jobsite, Gables Residential Services Incorporated (GRSI), GCI’s parent company, signed a vendor services agreement (VSA) with Red Coats to provide a fire watch and other security services for the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020: Yet Another Reason to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

May 25, 2020 — James Hultz - Newmeyer Dillion
Business interruption coverage stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic is a matter of intense debate. The number of policyholder lawsuits continues to rise sharply and an increasing number of state legislatures are considering laws to specifically address such coverage. Now, additional proposed legislation at the federal level could completely and definitively resolve the debate in favor of coverage for policyholders. The Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020 On April 14, Congress introduced the Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020 (the “Act”) which, if passed, would require insurance companies to cover business interruption losses due to “viral pandemics, forced closures of businesses, mandatory evacuations, and public safety power shut-offs.” The bill further states:

Any exclusion in a contract for business interruption insurance that is in force on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be void to the extent that it excludes losses specified . . . .

The draft legislation also specifies that it preempts state approval of any contrary exclusion and renders such approval “void to the extent that it excludes losses specified.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com

More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

June 04, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, I’m back. It’s been quite a while since my last post due to some busy family times and running my law practice. Hopefully, you will hear from me more often in the future. Now. . . on with the post: I have often discussed indemnity provisions here at Construction Law Musings. I’ve posted on a range of things relating to indemnity from when those sticky clauses are unenforceable to what to look out for in such a clause when reviewing your construction contract. A recent case out of Fairfax examines another wrinkle in these indemnity clauses. In Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, LLC v. Paramount Constr. Servs., LLC, the Court examined the language of a fairly typical indemnity clause in a construction contract. The general facts of the case are as follows. The Plaintiff alleged that it owns the property at 6129 Leesburg Pike, that it entered into a contract with Paramount Construction Services LLC to install clothes washers and dryers in individual units at the property, and that, in the process, Paramount (or one of its subcontractors) negligently severed a water pipe, which caused significant damage to the property. The plaintiff’s property insurance carrier agreed to pay the plaintiff $2,598,918.41. But the actual damages exceeded that payment by $952,020.90. The plaintiff sued Paramount for $952,020, pursuant to an indemnity provision in the contract. Paramount demurred to the Complaint arguing that the indemnity clause did not apply to create liability for Paramount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It

September 03, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Channel 13 Who TV reported, in Winterset, Iowa, Mary Gregory allegedly signed an estimate for hail damage repair to her home, and was later told by the contractor that it was a contract. When a crew showed up to her home to perform the work, she turned them away. Then, Gregory received a letter from an attorney demanding eight thousand dollars for breach of contract. It turns out that the contractor altered the estimate Gregory signed and submitted it to the insurance company. According to Who TV, the altered estimate “contained work that Gregory says she didn’t authorize and a price tag of $32,134.” Jim Nelle, the contractor, admitted that he added to the contract after it was signed. He claims he was only trying to help her. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES