SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021

March 01, 2021 — Emily K. Bias & Josh D. Morton - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Blog
The “Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys” is a document jointly promulgated by the American Land Title Association (ALTA), representing the title insurance industry, and the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS), representing professional land surveyors, which describes the uniform minimum standards with which surveyors must comply when preparing a survey to be used by a title insurance company for the purpose of deleting the general survey exception from ALTA title policy forms. The first such set of standards was developed in 1962 and has since been revised 10 times. The standards are currently updated every five years and are relied on by real estate professionals, including purchasers, lenders, title insurers and their attorneys, nationwide. In October 2020, a joint committee comprising representatives of both ALTA and NSPS adopted the “2021 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys,” which will become effective on February 23, 2021. The significant changes between the 2021 standards and the previous 2016 standards are summarized below. Survey Matters The 2021 standards clarify that only survey-related matters must be summarized on the survey. This revision was intended to foreclose a practice common among some institutional lenders to require that the survey list all items shown in Schedule BII of the title commitment on the face of the survey regardless of whether those items may in fact be survey related. The 2021 standards also add a requirement that the surveyor include a note specifying whether the location of a right of way, easement or other survey-related matter is shown on the survey. This change incorporates common lender and purchaser requirements that were not previously enumerated in the survey standards. Reprinted courtesy of Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and Josh D. Morton, Pillsbury Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Morton may be contacted at josh.morton@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.



After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.



KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.



Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”



As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.



While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”



ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”



In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland

August 19, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Remember that case I discussed a while back relating to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) building in Annapolis, Maryland? Remember how it was a lawsuit over parallams and failure of those parallams? Do you even remember what a parallam is? Well, that case was initially dismissed upon the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment because the trial court determined that CBF did not file its lawsuit within the proper time frame after notice of the potential failure of the building materials. Of course, CBF appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under the caption The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et. al. v. Weyerhaeuser Company (4th Circuit). After a great review of the facts of the case, the engineering inspections and reports at issue and the trial court’s ruling, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the district court jumped the gun in dismissing the lawsuit so early in the process because:

a genuine dispute exists as to whether knowledge of the water infiltration problem would have put a reasonable person on notice that the Parallams were susceptible to premature deterioration and that their PolyClear 2000 treatment would not preserve them.

In short, the court ruled that the engineering reports relating to moisture issues would have put CBF on notice of the particular issue of deterioration that was at issue in the litigation. 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

---

Japan Quake Triggers Landslides, Knocks Power Plant Offline

September 10, 2018 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
A magnitude 6.7 earthquake occurred on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido on Sept. 6, leaving at least seven dead and damaging buildings and structures in the region, including a 1,650MW coal-fired thermal power plant that was taken offline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

---

Combating Climate Change by Reducing Embodied Energy in the Built Environment

December 02, 2019 — Brent Trenga - Construction Executive
The building and construction industry is a significant consumer of non-renewable energy resources and is contributing to changing the earth’s environment in damaging and irreversible ways. These impacts are being felt in climate-related shifts that include increases in the earth’s average temperature and rising sea levels. A new report by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that 2018 was the fourth-hottest year since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable global temperature data is available. The three hottest years on record were 2015, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, the rise in sea levels is causing “nuisance floods” to become more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the United States grew from two per year to nearly 12. These and other environmental impacts underscore the urgency of battling climate change and how critical it is for all industries—including construction—to stem the tide on this issue. Reducing embodied energy in the built environment is one way the building and construction sector can do its part to address one of the major challenges of this century. Reprinted courtesy of Brent Trenga, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Trenga may be contacted at brent.trenga@kingspan.com

---

Massachusetts High Court: Attorney's Fee Award Under Consumer Protection Act Not Covered by General Liability Insurance Policy

September 19, 2022 — Jeffrey J. Vita & David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the case of Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. v. Poirier, 189 N.E.3d 306 (Mass. 2022), Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court concluded that an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Chapter 93A (Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Act) is not covered under an insured’s general liability insurance policy. Applying Massachusetts law, the Court found that a statutory award of attorney’s fees stemming from a bodily injury claim is not reasonably considered “damages because of bodily injury” or “costs taxed against the insured” so as to trigger general liability coverage. Facts of the Case A Servpro company (owned by Mr. and Mrs. Poirier) was hired to clean up a basement after a sewage spill. The owners of the home were injured by fumes from chemicals used in the cleanup and accordingly brought suit against the Poiriers and their Servpro business. In the lawsuit, the homeowners alleged negligence, breach of contract, and also a Chapter 93A claim, asserting breach of warranty of merchantability and warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs waived the negligence and breach of contract claims and sought a bench trial on the Chapter 93A claims alone. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

September 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to David H. Fisk of Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC, “Before filing a lawsuit or initiating an arbitration proceeding pertaining to a construction defect, a condominium association in Texas with eight or more units must now comply with the newly added Section 82.119 to Chapter 82 of the Texas Property Code.” Fisk reported that the new section “requires affected associations to have a licensed professional engineer inspect the units and common elements in question and prepare a written report that (1) identifies the specific units or common elements, (2) describes the present physical condition of the units or common elements, and (3) describes any modifications, maintenance, or repairs to the units or common elements performed by the unit owners or the association.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

May 16, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have often “mused” on the need to have a good solid construction contract at the beginning of a project. While this is always true, it is particularly true in residential contracting where a homeowner may or may not know the construction process or have experience with large scale construction. Often you, as a construction general contractor, are providing the first large scale construction that the homeowner has experienced. For this reason, through meetings and the construction contract, setting expectations early and often is key. As a side note to this need to set expectations, the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) and the Virginia General Assembly require certain clauses to be in every residential construction contract. DPOR strictly enforces these contractual items and failure to put them in your contracts can lead to fines, penalties and possibly even revocation of a contractor’s license. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---