SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

April 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Marisa L. Saber on the Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog, discussed Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act, and how it can benefit both builders and plaintiffs in construction defect cases. Saber stated that the “Indiana New Home Construction Warranty Act (the “Act”) (see Indiana Code §32-27-2-1 et. seq.) allows a builder to provide specific warranties and disclaim all implied warranties if the text of the statute is followed.” Furthermore, the warranties must be backed by an insurance policy. Saber answers the question as to why a builder would choose to provide express warranties: “The likely answer is that it allows the builder to have control over its liability if a construction defect occurs.” For instance, “[i]f a builder provides express warranties via the Act, it is assured that any warranty liability will be covered by insurance.” This benefits a plaintiff working in a subrogation case, “as there will be guaranteed insurance for the construction defect if the builder complies with the Act.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Each of the 20 welds at the base of the tower of the Bay Bridge took more than four hours to complete, with the lengthy welds forming at one-and-a-half inches per minute. They’ve been finished for two years now, but inspectors are just now checking the welds for defects. Any defects found will have to be removed and repaired. Mazen Wahbeh, an engineer on the project, assumes that less than 5 percent of the total welded area will have to be repaired. According to Wahbeh, the bridge can open before the welds are thoroughly checked and repaired, and so “the contractor is prioritizing the remaining work.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

May 20, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (May 9, 2024) - New York Partners Jennifer Oxman and Andrew Harms recently secured dismissal of a personal injury plaintiff’s complaint on summary judgment in Queens County, with a state judge accepting their argument that a porter who allegedly tripped and fell on loose wood in a stairwell had no cause of action against the property owner because it was his job to clean the stairs in the first instance. The porter was not an employee of the property owner, but rather an employee of a property management company. Therefore, the workers compensation bar did not apply to the employee’s claims. In a four-page decision, Justice Chereé A. Buggs of Queens County Supreme Court found that plaintiff’s duties as a porter included cleaning the stairwell and that he saw and cleaned loose pieces of wood on occasions prior to his accident. Justice Buggs held that while the wood debris likely came from an “outside source”, i.e. a contractor performing work at a neighboring building, the source of the debris was not relevant. Rather, what mattered was the fact that the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped was “inherent in or related to” plaintiff’s work responsibilities. By contrast, Justice Buggs held that the contractor who allegedly was the source of the wood was not entitled to summary judgment under the same legal theory because it arguably caused and created the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

July 08, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

KCBD reports on the problems of a Lubbock, Texas contractor. It’s hard to do the job when your tools keep getting stolen. Corey Meadows, owner of Top Cut Interiors, told KCBD that he had chained an air compressor to a table saw. Since the thieves couldn’t cut the chain, they cut the table saw “and just took the air compressor and the chain.” Meadows estimates the thieves cost him $2,000 in damaged or stolen equipment and time lost.

Read the full story…

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

---

Know Your Obligations Under Both the Prime Contract and Subcontract

December 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
A recent case out of New Mexico highlights the importance for subcontractors to review their contract with the general and the contract between the general and the owner. In Centex/Worthgroup, LLC v. Worthgroup Architects, L.P, the architect claimed that the limitation of liability clause in the prime contract trumped the provisions of the subcontract. The court disagreed and ruled that the specific provision in the subcontract controlled. In the case, a general contractor was hired to expand and renovate a resort. The general contractor subcontracted with an architect to design a mechanically stabilized earth wall. The prime contract contained a limitation of liability clause that states:

general contractor shall require its design professional Subcontractor(s) to obtain insurance in an amount not less than $3,000,000. Owner agrees that it will limit general contractor’s liability to Owner for any errors or omissions in the design of the Project to whatever sums Owner is able to collect from the above described professional errors and omissions insurance carrier.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

District Court Allows DBE False Claims Act Case to Proceed

February 23, 2017 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Last week, I posted about how whistleblowers continue to receive large settlements related to DBE fraud. A somewhat recent case from the federal court in Maryland shows how whistleblowers are ferreting out DBE fraud on construction projects receiving any form of federal funding. The Case The case involves a bridge painting project in Maryland that was let by the Maryland State Highway Administration. The contract required the prime contractor to meet a 15% DBE participation goal. The prime contractor submitted a bid stating it would have 15.12% DBE participation. After it was awarded the contract, the prime contractor – as is typical – submitted additional forms certifying to the MSHA that 15.12% of its contract price would be performed by a DBE firm. The prime contractor indicated that one DBE subcontractor, Northeast Work and Safety Boats, LLC (“NWSB”), would perform the 15.12% of the work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

October 28, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

After carefully dissecting the earth movement exclusion, the court denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. High Street Lofts Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109043 (D. Colo. Sept. 26, 2011).

The City of Boulder performed road repair work near High Street’s property, some of which involved the use of a vibrating compactor to compact and set the roadbed. High Street noticed damage to its building, such as cracks in walls, sloping of floors and separations of porches from the building itself. High Street contacted the City of Boulder, who forwarded the complaint to its contractor, Concrete Express, Inc.

High Street also filed a claim with its business insurer, American Family, who denied the claim. American Family relied on an opinion letter by High Street’s engineer. The letter indicated that the damage was the result of "soil consolidation/settlement," in response to the construction activities. Based on this letter American Family concluded the claim was excluded under the policy’s earth movement exclusion.

High Street sued American Family, who moved for summary judgment.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

October 14, 2019 — John Baker - White and Williams LLP
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that should serve as a warning not only to employers, but to their corporate officers. The case against Altor, Inc., a New Jersey-based construction company, began in 2012 when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) directed Altor and its sole director and officer to pay a $412,000 penalty (Payment Order) to OSHA for several violations, including the failure to comply with fall protection standards. The company refused to pay, arguing that it did not possess sufficient assets. The Secretary of Labor filed a Petition for Civil Contempt against Altor and its President, Vasilios Saites. The court acknowledged that the company and Mr. Saites could defend against a contempt finding by showing that he and the company were unable to comply with the Payment Order. Beyond merely stating that they could not pay, the court required that they must show that they made good faith efforts to comply with the Order. After considering all of the evidence, the court ultimately relied on Altor’s bank records, which reflected that the company ended each month during a two-year period after the violations with a positive bank balance. Thus, the court determined that Altor could have made “at least relatively modest” payments and emphasized that the company never attempted to negotiate a reduced sum or a payment plan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Baker, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com

---