Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

June 10, 2015 — Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Belasco v. Wells, 183 Cal. Rptr.3d 840, 234 Cal. App. 4th 409 (2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed the question of whether a homeowner, when settling an administrative complaint against a licensed homebuilder, can release future, unknown claims. Despite the presence of a California statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, stating that a general release does not extend to claims that the releasor does not know about, the court held that the homeowner’s express release of future claims was enforceable. Thus, the homeowner’s release - signed as part of a 2006 settlement of the homeowner’s construction defect claims against the defendant, a homebuilder - barred the homeowner’s 2012 claims against the builder based on latent defects in the roof of the home that the homeowner discovered in 2011. Background The plaintiff, David Belasco, a patent attorney, bought a newly-constructed home from the defendant-builder, Gary Wells, in 2004. Wells holds a Class B General Building Contractor license issued by the Contractors State License Board (the Board). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint against Wells with the Board based on alleged construction defects in the home. As a result of Belasco’s complaint to the Board, the parties engaged in arbitration. At the arbitration, both parties were represented by counsel. Wells offered to settle the dispute for the sum of $25,000 and Belasco accepted Wells’ offer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Franklin County, Pennsylvania Public Opinion reports that an area school is coming to an end with its construction lawsuit. The school district was sued by its contractors for a combined $1.4 million, which the school district withheld when the project was not completed on schedule. Lobar Inc. claimed that the district additionally owed interest and should pay attorney fees. The school claimed that only $1.15 million was due under the contract. Under the settlement, they will be paying $1.136 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

February 12, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A West Virginia school board has filed a lawsuit against four companies over the construction of the Lewisburg Elementary School. The main allegation is that Carpenter Reclamation Inc. excavated the site deeper than was called for, which then incurred greater expenses for the subsequent contractors, and further that the liner installed by Carpenter Reclamation was defective. The suit also names Western Surety, which issued a performance bond for Carpenter Reclamation. The school board claims that Carpenter’s failure to fix the problem, required $5,800 in evaluation, review, and testing. Further, the plumbing and lead contractors had additional expenses of $10,587 and $212,645 because of the deeper foundation. The school board has also named these firms, Dougherty Company, Inc. and Swope Construction, in the lawsuit. Ron Mallory, the president of Swope Construction said that the school board’s dispute was “with the site contractor, not with us,” noting that they did corrective work under a change order. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Specified Or Designated Operations Endorsement – Limitation of Insurance Coverage

July 15, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Your commercial general liability (CGL) policy may contain a specified or designated operations endorsement. This does not operate as an exclusion but as a LIMITATION of coverage. The endorsement may provide that bodily injury or property damage ONLY applies to the operations or business described therein. Similarly, there may be a limitation of coverage for designated classifications or codes which has the same effect—limiting coverage to the classifications/codes listed therein. This is an important consideration, and you need to understand and watch out for such limitations of coverage. (These aren’t the only ones, but it’s important to appreciate that limitations of coverage operate to limit the coverage to which the CGL policy applies.) The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal dealt with this exact issue under Alabama law (although the same analysis would apply in numerous jurisdictions). In this case, a landscaper (the insured) had a CGL policy with a specified operations endorsement that limited coverage to landscaping operations. The landscaper was hired to install an in-ground trampoline in addition to site and landscaping operations at a house. A person got hurt using the trampoline and the landscaper was sued. The CGL insurer denied coverage outright (and, thus, any duty to defend) because the complaint asserted that the injury occurred from the landscaper’s assembly and installation of the trampoline, which was not a landscaping operation. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the landscaper’s insurance application specified that the landscaper did not perform any recreational or playground equipment erection or construction, and the installation and assembly of a trampoline would constitute recreational or playground equipment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform

February 18, 2015 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
On February 10, 2015, Senators Scheffer and Ulibarri introduced Senate Bill 15-177, which is sponsored in the House by Representatives DelGrosso and Singer. SB 15-177 amends the prerequisites, found in the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”), for an association to file a construction defect action. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Business, Labor, and Technology but not yet scheduled for hearing. The major points of the bill include: 1) enforcement of a mediation or arbitration provision contained in the original governing documents of a common interest community, even if subsequently amended or removed; 2) the addition of a requirement that mediation take place before a construction defect action can be filed; 3) heightened requirements that an association board provide advanced notice to all unit owners, together with a disclosure of projected costs, duration, and financial impact of the construction defect claim; 4) the addition of a requirement that the board obtain the written consent of a majority of the owners of units, and; 5) a requirement that prior to the purchase and sale of a property in a common interest community, the purchaser receive notice that binding arbitration may be required for certain disputes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at mcleroy@hhmrlaw.com

Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
There might have been a number of problems with San Francisco’s new Bay Bridge, but despite all that, the Contra-Costa Times says that the experts say that there is no reason for panic. And although the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, Mark DeSaulnier, has been a critic of the bridge, he says that he is “convinced the old bridge is unsafe.” Although DeSaulnier wants an independent review, construction of the bridge has been investigated by what the Times refers to as “dozens of internationally renowned bridge engineers and other experts.” According to the experts, the problems with the bridge fall in to three categories, ranging from the fixable, through the fixed, to those that were never actual problems. Of the last category, the Oakland Tribune reported in 2005 that construction workers claimed they were told to “conceal shoddy welds to speed up construction,” but the Federal Highway Administration outside experts found no evidence of bad welds. In another case, bad welds were discovered at the factory where a span was being constructed. The process was changed and the bad welds repaired. Caltrans has delayed the opening of the Bay Bridge to December 10. Earlier plans were to open the bridge in September. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

November 16, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are a contractor, you are aware of workers’ compensation immunity when it comes to injuries on the site; and, if not, you should be. It is this workers’ compensation immunity (where workers compensation is the exclusive form of liability for an injured employee) which is why a contractor should generally always want to ensure its subcontractors have workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ compensation immunity would protect a contractor that is being sued by a subcontractor’s employees that are injured on the job. For more information on workers’ compensation immunity, please check out this article and this article. In this regard, Florida Statute s. 440.10(1)(b) provides:

In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment.

(If the subcontractor does not have workers’ compensation insurance, the contractor is deemed the statutory employer and its workers’ compensation insurance would apply. Otherwise, the subcontractor’s workers compensation insurance would apply.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court considered the scope of testimony to be offered by the insureds' expert regarding a policy written for sanitation districts. Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Bd. v. Am. Alternative Ins. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112210 (N.D. N.Y. Aug. 25, 2015). The city of Binghamton and the city's Sewage Board sued American Alternative Insurance Corporation (AAIC) for coverage for a collapsed wall. AAIC sought the limit to testimony of the insureds' expert, Paul B. Nielander, through a motion in limine. AAIC argued that Nielander was not qualified as an expert in interpreting insurance policies. His knowledge and experience was limited to insurance practices in other states and the words contained in policies other than AAIC policies. He had no experience with (i) negotiating, drafting, or performing under an AAIC policy, (ii) handling claims or interpreting policies written in New York State, or (iii) drafting policies or otherwise participating in what he conceded was a "niche market" of providing insurance to sanitation districts. Further, Neilander was not qualified to offer expert analysis of when the structural failure of the wall occurred because he had no training or experience as an engineer. 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