Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

December 09, 2019 — Ray Reese - Construction Executive
Any general contractor understands the range of factors that go into building and sustaining a successful jobsite: hiring the right team, maintaining cutting-edge equipment, ensuring constant communication with clients and effectively leveraging the newest building technologies, just to name a few. But any good general contractor understands that there is one factor that should always be considered as top priority: jobsite safety. The health and wellbeing of a project’s team is paramount for obvious reasons, and it isn’t a lighthearted matter. Injuries and fatalities have too often been a piece of our industry’s story. In 2017 alone, there were 971 reported deaths on construction sites, which accounted for 20% of total worker fatalities, according to a report from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Of these 971 fatalities, 582 were the result of construction’s “fatal four”—falls, workers being struck by objects, electrocutions and workers being caught between equipment. For members of the industry, these are difficult numbers to read and to process; yet, it is extremely important to consider the injuries and lives lost when we take into consideration the seriousness of jobsite safety. Often, general contractors’ and superintendents’ greatest challenge isn’t being convinced of the necessity of jobsite safety practices in protecting employees or the value of safety in creating a productive work environment. Instead, the focus should be providing industry leaders tips on exactly how to improve safety measures on their own jobsites. Understanding that safety is everyone’s responsibility is paramount. Reprinted courtesy of Ray Reese, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Reese may be contacted at rreese@rives.com

Environmental Roundup – April 2019

May 06, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Besides showers, this April brought a number of notable new environmental decisions issued by the federal courts. Before your mind turns to May and its flowers, here’s a summary: 1. DC Circuit. On April 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the case of State of New York, et al. v. EPA. In the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the Congress established the Northeast Ozone Transport Region, composed of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia and a portion of Virginia. Recently, several of these states requested EPA to expand this region to include the “upwind states” of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and the remaining portions of Virginia. Doing so would assist the “downwind” states in complying with EPA’s 2008 Ozone standard. EPA rejected this request, which was then appealed to the DC Circuit by the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. Because of its unique properties, ozone created by emissions in the upwind states can be transported to the downwind states, thus allegedly hampering their ability to cope with EPA ozone standards. The court agreed that EPA has the authority to expand the Northeast Transport Ozone Transport Region, but it also has the ability to exercise its reasonable discretion not to do so. In addition, the agency’s decision to rely instead on the remedies available to it in in the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” provision was reasonable and adequately justified, and the court accordingly upheld the agency’s decision. The court also noted that other remedies may be available to the downwind states, just not this one. 2. DC Circuit. The Court also decided on April 23, 2019 the case of Air Transport Association of America v. Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA held that the payments made by the City of Portland’s airport’s utility city charges for offsite stormwater drainage and Superfund remediation was not an “impermissible diversion” of airport revenues or in violation of the “Anti-Head Tax Act,” which is codified at 49 USC Section 40116(b) and which prohibits collecting a tax on persons travelling in air commerce. Here, the charges are assessed against the airport for the use by the airport of the city’s water and sewage services. The Superfund assessment is based on the fact that the Willamette River which runs through downtown Portland could make the city a Superfund potentially responsible party, and the cty is assessing all rate payers—including the airport—a Superfund assessment. The airport is federally funded and is owned and operated by the Port of Portland, and the Port pays a combined sewer, stormwater /water bill with multiple line items including these contested items. The court notes that federal law, in particular 49 USC Section 47107(k)(2), authorizes airport revenues to be used for the operating costs of the airport receiving federal funding, and the FAA could reasonably determine that these general expenses are authorized airport “operating costs” even though the city services are provided outside the boundaries of the airport. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

“A No-Lose Proposition?”

October 07, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act payment bond surety and its principal general contractor both sued in federal court in New Orleans by a project subcontractor sought to compel arbitration the claims against both contractor and surety based on an indisputably enforceable arbitration clause in the subcontract. This was urged to avoid separate actions against the contractor (arbitration) and its surety (litigation), even though the surety was not a party to the subcontract and, therefore, not a party to the arbitration clause. In the face of the lack of an express agreement to arbitrate, the contractor and contractor argued that “no federal statute or policy prohibits all of Plaintiff’s claims from proceeding to arbitration….” Additionally, those parties urged that the surety should be allowed to affirmatively compel arbitration because the surety “would otherwise have the ability to assert the right to compel arbitration as a defense….” The New Orleans federal district court was unpersuaded:

“[D]istrict courts within this circuit have recognized that ‘Miller Act claims by a subcontractor for unpaid labor and materials are separate and distinct from those for general breach of contract… [and] arbitration and Miller Act suits, are not, per se, inconsistent with one another.’…[A]bsent express contractual intent to subject Miller Act claims to arbitration, the court [will] not force the parties to arbitrate claims against nonparties to the contract at issue…. [C]laims against a surety, which was a non-signatory to the contract, would not be subject to arbitration without any contractual basis to do so.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

AEM Pursuing ISO Standard for Earthmoving Grade-Control Data

March 09, 2020 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
Citing the growing and increasingly crowded field of grade-control systems and site-layout technology, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) announced on Feb. 18 that it is working with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) on a common standard for grade-control data sharing. Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Mediating is Eye Opening

September 17, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As anyone that reads this construction law blog on any sort of regular basis knows, I am a big advocate for mediation in most cases (construction or otherwise). I took this truly to heard about four years ago when I decided to go through the training and mentorship to become a certified mediator here in Virginia. This training led to many opportunities to act as a mediator in the General District Courts here in Virginia and has recently given me the great privilege of helping parties that were not court referred resolve their disputes. I’ve discussed this first category of mediations at other times here at Musings, but it is the second category that has opened my eyes lately. The non-court referred mediations are those where the parties actively seek out the assistance of a mediator because they, like me, know that more often than not the control and ability to come to some form of negotiated solution (not to mention short circuiting the litigation process in a way that saves money) is a better way to go than to go through the expensive (though as a construction attorney I acknowledge sometimes necessary) process of 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

Personal Thoughts on Construction Mediation

September 20, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Construction Mediation WorksAs I left a mediation last week at 8:30 at night, I realized something that I knew all along. Mediation works. Why does mediation work? For several reasons that I can think of. The first, and likely most important is that lawyers are expensive. In most construction cases, we charge by the hour and those hours build up, especially close to a trial date. A mediated settlement can avoid this sharp uptick in attorney fees that always occurs in the last month before trial. Therefore the earlier the better. The second is the flexibility to make a business decision. Commercial contractors and subcontractors are in a business, and they should be making business decisions. While one such decision can be to go to litigation; litigation is not always the best solution from a financial, or stress perspective. Construction professionals, with the assistance of construction attorneys, can come up with a creative way to deal with a problem and solve it. 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

Reminder: A Little Pain Now Can Save a Lot of Pain Later

April 28, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
I know, you think you hear it enough from me here at Construction Law Musings. I am seemingly constantly beating the drum of early advice from a construction attorney and the benefits of spending a bit of money now to avoid spending a lot of money later. I do this because real world examples of both the costs of failing to prepare early and the benefits of following this advice abound. An example of the costs of failing to prepare early can be found at the Construction Payment where the zLien folks discuss a New Hampshire case where a contractor lost two thirds of its potential damages because it did not properly set out the contractual terms and what was to be included in contractual damages. Without any clear line to go on, the Court found liability against the NHDOT for negligent misrepresentation and could only award damages up to a cap that was approximately a third of the damages awarded by the jury and about half of what the trial court had determined to be the damages. 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

Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

May 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found that various claims for bodily injury against a supplier of asbestos products arose from multiple occurrences, increasing indemnity amounts available under the policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45437 (N.D. Ohio April 7, 2015). Mahoning Valley Supply Company (MVS) was sued by numerous claimants who alleged that they had been injured by asbestos-containing products manufactured by third parties, but supplied by MVS. The claimants alleged exposure to asbestos fibers at a variety of job sites, on numerous dates, and under a variety of conditions. Two insurers shared defense and indemnity costs. In 2013, Continental informed MVS that the three policies issued to MVS were nearly exhausted. Therefore, the parties disputed whether MVS' asbestos claims arose out of a single "occurrence" rather than multiple occurrences. The policies defined "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES