Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

China Bans Tallest Skyscrapers Following Safety Concerns

July 25, 2021 — Bloomberg News
China is prohibiting construction of the tallest skyscrapers to ensure safety following mounting concerns over the quality of some projects. The outright ban covers buildings that are taller than 500 meters (1,640 feet), the National Development and Reform Commission said in a notice Tuesday. Local authorities will also need to strictly limit building of towers that are more than 250 meters tall. The top economic planner cited quality problems and safety hazards in some developments stemming from loose oversight. A 72-story tower in Shenzhen was closed in May for checks following reports of unexplained wobbling, feeding concern about the stability of one of the technology hub’s tallest buildings. Construction of buildings exceeding 100 meters should strictly match the scale of the city where they will be located, along with its fire rescue capability, the commission said. “It’s primarily for safety,” said Qiao Shitong, an associate law professor at the University of Hong Kong who studies property and urban law. Extremely tall buildings “are more like signature projects for mayors and not necessarily efficient.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

August 11, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

InÂ Continental Western Ins. Co. v. Shay Construction, Inc., No. 10-cv-02126 (D. Col. July 28. 2011), general contractor Milender White subcontracted with insured Shay for framing work.Â Â Shay in turn subcontracted some of its work to others.Â When Shay?s subcontractors filed suit against Shay and Milender White seeking payment for their work,Â Milender White cross-claimed against Shay for breach of contract alleging that,Milender White notified Shay during construction that some of Shay?s work was defective and that when Shay repaired its defective work, it damaged work performed by others.Â Shay’s CGL insurer Continental Western filed suit against Milender White and Shay seeking a judicial declaration of no coverage.Â The federal district trial court granted Continental Western?s motion for summary judgment.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis

November 09, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
Insureds often request independent counsel when insurers agree to provide a defense subject to a reservation of rights, pursuant to which an insurer takes the position that certain damages may not be indemnifiable. Requests for independent counsel are often rooted in fear that a defense attorney who has a relationship with the insurer may be incentivized to defend the insured in a way that maximizes the potential for the insurer to succeed on its coverage defenses. As explained by the Illinois Supreme Court in Maryland Cas. Co. v. Peppers, 355 N.E.2d 24 (Ill. 1976), when a conflict of interest arises between an insurer and its insured, the attorney appointed by the insurer is faced with serious ethical questions and the insured is entitled to its own attorney. Illinois courts generally follow the rule that an insured is entitled to independent counsel upon a showing of an actual conflict. In Builders Concrete Servs., LLC v. Westfield Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 19 C 7792, 2020 WL 5518474 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently addressed a dispute between an insurer and its insured about independent counsel. Westfield insured Builders Concrete Services (BCS). Focus Construction hired BCS as a subcontractor to perform concrete work on a new apartment building. BCS’ work included pouring concrete for structural columns, one of which buckled and failed. BCS sued Focus Construction for withholding payment, and Focus Construction counter-sued for breach of contract and negligence relating to BCS’ alleged faulty work that caused the column to fall. Focus Construction’s counterclaim alleged that the column failure damaged other parts of the building on which Builders did not perform work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia

July 31, 2023 — Aileen Cho - Engineering News-Record
Rugged Construction | Part Three of an ENR Series Winding along the edges of steep slopes deep in the eastern forests of British Columbia, a stretch of Highway 1 offers stunning vistas for commuters and visitors as they traverse Kicking Horse Canyon. But the 70-plus-year-old two-lane highway also has been susceptible to rockfalls, avalanches and traffic accidents involving both humans and wildlife. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

April 15, 2024 — Mason Fletcher - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The University of Washington (UW), a public university, aimed to secure a real estate developer for a new building on its campus. The proposal involved an 80-year ground lease (the “Lease”), and developers submitted bids. The selected developer would demolish an existing building, construct a new one, own it during the Lease at its own cost, and UW would lease back a portion, with ownership reverting to UW at the Lease’s end. Alexandria Real Equities, Inc. (ARE) was a finalist but ultimately was not selected, and the Lease was awarded to Wexford Science and Technology, LLC (Wexford). As a result, ARE filed suit against UW asserting three claims: 1) UW lacked authority to execute the Lease, 2) UW didn’t follow required competitive bidding procedures, and 3) UW’s developer selection process was arbitrary and capricious. None of these claims were successful and ARE appealed. Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. v. Univ. of Wash., __ Wn. App. __, 539 P.3d 54 (2023), a published decision. The Court concluded, based on the facts in that case, that because construction was not publicly funded, UW did not have to follow competitive bidding requirements that were laid out in a statute relevant to state universities. Still, the Court applied the “bright-line cutoff point” that prohibits disappointed bidders from challenging an award once a contract has been executed. See Dick Enterprises, Inc. v. Metro. King County, 83 Wn. App. 566, 572, 922 P.2d 184 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com

Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

January 28, 2015 — Martin Z Braun – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Brookfield Property Partners won a bid to run a marina in New York’s Battery Park City neighborhood over the objections of residents backing a local businessman who operated the facility and a popular sailing club and school. The state’s Battery Park City Authority voted Thursday to approve a 10-year agreement with Brookfield, which owns an adjacent 8 million-square-foot office and retail complex. Brookfield is bringing in billionaire real estate investor Andrew Farkas’s Island Global Yachting to manage the North Cove Marina. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Martin Z Braun, Bloomberg
Mr. Braun may be contacted at mbraun6@bloomberg.net

Number of Occurrences Depends on Who is Sued

August 20, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to David L. Beck of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (as published by Association of Corporate Counsel), an Oregon court “held that property damage incurred to a condominium project resulting from a myriad of construction defects constituted just one occurrence under the relevant excess general liability policy.” In Chartis Specialty Ins. Co. v. American Contractors Ins. Co Risk Retention Group, et al., Chartis argued that “[b]ecause there were multiple defects/conditions resulting in property damage” there were also “multiple occurrences.” However, “[t]he court disagreed, finding that despite various defects, the property damages at issue arose from just one occurrence: the developers' failure to perform its duties.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has upheld the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in Claredon American Insurance Company v. Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. This case was triggered by a water intrusion problem at a condominium complex, the Terraces at Emerystation, built and sold by Wareham Development Corporation. The insurer, Claredon, retained Risk Enterprise Management as the third party claims administrator. REM retained the law firm Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. The construction defect case was settled in 2007 and the condo owners moved back by early 2008.

Due to issues with the claims settlement, Claredon filed against REM for “professional negligence, indemnity, apportionment and contribution,” with a cross-complaint that the cross-defendants negligently defended the developer, Wareham.

In response, the cross-defendants filed a motion to strike the cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied this motion and now this has been upheld by the appeals court.

The court noted that “The fundamental thrust of the cross-complaint is not protected litigation-related speech and petitioning activity undertaken on another’s behalf in a judicial proceeding.”

Read the court’s decision…