Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Four Common Construction Contracts

August 26, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Like Baskin Robins, construction contracts come in a variety of different flavors although, thankfully, significantly fewer than 31. Here are four of the more common types of construction contracts between project owners and contractors: Fixed Price Fixed price construction contracts, also commonly referred to as “lump sum” or “stipulated sum” contracts, are the most common types of construction contracts. As its name suggests, under a fixed price contract a contractor agrees to construct a project for a “fixed” or agreed upon price. 1. Benefits: Fixed price construction contracts provide price predictability for project owners because absent changes in the scope of work, unforeseen conditions, or other circumstances which might cause the “fixed” price of the contract to go up or down, the contractor is required to complete the work for the agreed upon price. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic

September 07, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters & Latosha M. Ellis - Hunton Andrews Kurth
As the effects of coronavirus continue, organizations and companies now are considering whether events in late 2020 and early 2021 can take place or need to be converted to virtual events. What insurance effects will those changes and cancellations have? Consideration of these important decisions requires a review of both event-cancellation insurance and a consideration of force majeure and other such issues. On the insurance front, years ago, many policyholders purchased event-cancellation insurance for events in 2020, 2021, and even as far out as 2024. Such policies, purchased before the middle of March 2020, generally contain explicit coverage “buy-backs” for losses from “communicable disease.” That is, the policyholders paid an extra, specifically identified premium to remove any exclusion for communicable disease from these policies. Typically, these policies do not use the word, “virus”, but rather use “communicable disease”; and exclude neither. Those policies typically cover a specified amount of net profit and include additional coverages for “Cost of Remedial Action”, “Future Marketing Expense”, etc., over and above that specified amount of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause

March 09, 2020 — Aimee Cook Oleson - Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
Indemnification clauses appear in nearly every agreement, but they are often overlooked as mere boilerplate provisions after the parties have painstakingly negotiated all of the other terms. It is not uncommon for parties to simply re-use the indemnity language from a prior agreement without considering whether it is a good fit for their current project. This can be a big mistake that may lead to ambiguities and uncertainties if a dispute arises down the road. A standard or canned indemnification clause might work to undo all of the effort that has gone into properly allocating risk. These clauses often contain language such as “notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,” or the like, which can alter and override other provisions in the agreement. Indemnification clauses are arguably the most important part of an agreement when an accident or dispute arises on a project. Therefore, they deserve an extra look before finalizing an agreement. Here are a few issues to keep in mind when reviewing your next indemnification clause:

Have you included all necessary parties?

Any party who could face potential liability should be included as an indemnified party. This often includes entities and persons related to the contracting parties, not just the parties themselves.
A well drafted indemnity clause will ensure that all parties are liable for the result of their own work and negligence and that of any party that they have hired to work on a project. This includes employees, agents, subcontractors, or any other similar party.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aimee Cook Oleson, Sheppard Mullin
Ms. Oleson may be contacted at AOleson@sheppardmullin.com

Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

February 15, 2021 — David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the case of NextSun Energy Littleton, LLC v. Acadia Ins. Co., the United States District Court of Massachusetts held that once direct physical damage from a covered peril causes a covered business interruption loss, any increase in the duration of such business interruption, due to the enforcement of an ordinance or law, extends the coverage period provided for lost income. The Court further held that a policy exclusion for business interruption due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law not in force at the time of the loss only applies when the ordinance or law itself, not the enforcement action that it authorizes, was not in force at the time of the loss. The case involved a solar panel company, NextSun Energy Littleton (NextSun), that operated solar panel arrays providing electricity to the town of Littleton, Massachusetts. Due to a fire, 88 of the solar panels were damaged, and the Town immediately issued a “red-tag” order halting all energy-generating activity pending a safety inspection. The plaintiff purchased insurance for its panels along with “Energy Generating Income” (EGI) coverage, from the defendant, Acadia Ins. Co. (Acadia). The EGI policy covered “direct physical loss or damage” to “renewable energy generating equipment” and also covered the actual loss of surplus power income incurred during the interruption period. However, it excluded interruption of energy-generating income “caused by the enforcement of any ordinance, law, or decree … not in force at the time of loss.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com

Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Daily Business Review reported that Florida “attorneys anticipate lawsuits over construction defects, workmanship, change orders and warranties.” "We construction lawyers know this wave of litigation is coming, and we are getting ready," said attorney Jason Kellogg, a partner at Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman in Miami, told the Daily Business Review. Kellogg also stated that “there is a shortage of skilled workers in areas such as plumbing, electrical and other specialities that almost inevitably will lead to subpar work and defect litigation.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ill-fated Complaint Fails to State Claims Against Broker and FEMA

September 10, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
A complaint lodged against the insureds' broker and FEMA was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Lopez v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109803 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 2014). The insureds held a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) issued by FEMA, but sold by the broker. The insureds alleged that their property was totally destroyed by Hurricane Isaac. FEMA paid the insureds $234,513.02 for damage to their dwelling and $80,566.17 for its contents, for a total of $315,079.19. This was $34,920.81 below the policy limits. The insureds sued, claiming FEMA negligently miscalculated their damages, misvalued their property, and improperly adjusted their claim. The insureds also alleged that the broker failed to properly advise them regarding the nature of their coverage, the true value of their property, or to purchase the correct amount of insurance on their behalf. The negligent procurement claim against the broker failed because the insureds did not allege any specific facts tending to establish that the broker failed to use reasonable diligence in procuring their insurance. Likewise, the negligent misrepresentation claim against the broker was dismissed. Insurance agents had a duty to supply their customers with correct information, and they could be liable for negligent misrepresentation if they provided incorrect information and an insured was damaged. Here, the insureds did not allege a breach of the duty to supply correct information. 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

Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

March 05, 2015 — Svenja O’Donnell – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to double the number of homes built for first-time buyers by the end of the next parliamentary term in a bid to tackle Britain’s housing shortage. In a speech in Colchester, Essex, on Monday setting out the final part of his Tory party’s six-point campaign platform for the May 7 election, Cameron said 200,000 properties will be built by 2020 under his starter-homes plan. Prices of the homes, only available to first-time buyers under the age of 40, will be capped at 450,000 pounds ($692,000) in London and 250,000 pounds outside the capital. Reduced planning constraints will make it easier for developers to cut building costs, allowing the homes to be sold at a 20 percent discount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Svenja O’Donnell, Bloomberg
Ms. O’Donnell may be contacted at sodonnell@bloomberg.net

“Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

September 01, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

A policy’s “other insurance” clause and a contractual indemnity provision were at the root for determining which of two insurers had to cover for injuries at a construction site. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 76061 (N.D. Calif. July 14, 2011).

Hathaway was the general contractor at a demolition and construction project. Hathaway was insured by Zurich. Reinhardt Roofing was the roofing subcontractor. Reinhardt was insured by Valley Forge under a policy which named Hathaway as an additional insured. The subcontract also required Reinhardt to indemnify Hathaway for acts or omissions arising from Reinhardt’s work unless Hathaway was solely negligent.

Four of Reinhardt’s workers were injured when a canopy roof on which they were working collapsed. At the time of the accident, Hathaway’s on-site supervisor was inspecting a gap in the canopy roof, but did not order Reinhardt’s workers to stop working.

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES