Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

March 30, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s scary, uncertain times as the world grasps with how to deal with the coronavirus pandemic that has now spread to every continent on the globe with the exception of Antarctica. Although this is a global crisis, it has, and for the immediately future will continue to have, a direct impact on us individually as well our industry. While the impact of the coronavirus on the construction industry is uncertain, what is certain, is that it will have an impact, whether on the construction labor market, on construction supply chains, on the ability of contractors to deliver projects on time and within budget, and on decisions by owners whether to move forward with projects altogether. According to Ken Simonson, chief economist with the Associated General Contractors of America, during an interview at the ConExpo conference this past week in Las Vegas, while the coronavirus crises “is a story evolving by the hour . . . the impacts on construction are going to happen, but it’s hard to say how extensive, how long they’ll last, [and] how soon they’ll show up.” From a legal perspective, the coronavirus, and really any natural disaster, from the “Campfire Fire” in Northern California in 2018 to the “Big One” which can happen anytime, has the potential to adversely impact a construction project or shut it down completely. This in turn raises two different, but interrelated legal concepts: (1) force majeure; and (2) delay and time-impact claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Why Is It So Hard to Kill This Freeway?

April 18, 2023 — Benjamin Schneider - Bloomberg
Keith Pete remembers what Claiborne Avenue was like before the interstate. As a child in the early 1960s, the native New Orleanian would come to Claiborne Avenue with his dad to buy chickens from the local grocers. Sometimes, as a treat, father and son would get hamburgers on French rolls and pineapple juice and picnic on the neutral ground — the avenue’s wide, grassy median, which was thick with live oak trees and azaleas. “People used to sit and enjoy the weather,” Pete, 68, recalls. “There was beautiful grass all the way down. It was gorgeous.” At the time, Claiborne Avenue coursed through the heart of New Orleans’ Tremé neighborhood and a major center of Black commerce and culture. “It was safe; it was thriving,” Pete said. “It was mostly wiped out.” In 1966, workers began removing the avenue’s oaks and driving the pilings that would transform 18 blocks of the tree-lined boulevard into a viaduct carrying Interstate 10. While plans for a Robert Moses-designed waterfront freeway through the French Quarter were halted in 1969 after intense resistance from historic preservationists, the state- and city-backed Claiborne Expressway proceeded. The elevated highway and its tangle of off-ramps destroyed some 500 homes and 326 Black-owned businesses. The once-thriving corridor became a dark, noisy netherworld, unsafe for pedestrians and unhealthy for anyone who breathes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Schneider, Bloomberg

Avoid Five Common Fraudulent Schemes Used in Construction

December 02, 2019 — Ken Van Bree - Construction Executive
Here’s an attention-getting statistic: A typical case of fraud in the construction industry has a median loss of $227,000, according to the 2018 Report to the Nations issued by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) on occupational or internal fraud. This report further showed that the construction industry’s median loss is approximately $119,000 higher than the average fraud losses across all industries. Construction companies are most at risk for fraud related to corruption (such as bribes and kickbacks), billing related schemes, expense reimbursements, check tampering and equipment or material theft. This brings up three important questions:

What are the fraud schemes affecting your company?
How can contractors keep their companies from experiencing these types of fraud?
What is the profile of fraudster?

The threat of fraud can never be wholly removed; however, companies should take steps to identify likely fraud schemes they might face. Below are a number of schemes frequently used to defraud construction companies. Reprinted courtesy of Ken Van Bree, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion

November 18, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Town & Country Property, LLC v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. 1100009 (Ala. Oct. 21, 2010), property owner Town & Country contracted with insured general contractor Jones-Williams for the construction of a car dealership. All of the construction work was performed by Jones-Williams subcontractors. After completion, Town & Country sued Jones-Williams for defective construction. Jones-Williams’ CGL insurer Amerisure defended. The case was tried and a judgment was entered against Jones-Williams in favor of Town & Country. After Amerisure denied any obligation to pay the judgment, Town & Country sued Amerisure in a statutory direct action.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com.

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

No Coverage for Additional Insured

December 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Two insurers disputed who was responsible for coverage the additional insured contractor. Endurance Am. Spec. Ins. Co. v. Century Sur. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19194 (2nd Cir. Nov. 4, 2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Endurance, finding there was coverage for the additional insured general contractor after being sued by an employee of a subcontractor. Century's policy included an Action Over Exclusion clause, which excluded insurance coverage for injury to certain employees as follows: Exclusions: . . . e. Employer's Liability "Bodily injury" to: (1) an "employee" of the named insured arising out of and in the course of:

(a) Employment by the named insured; or
(b) Performing duties related to the conduct of the named insured's business.

The named insured was Pinnacle Construction & Renovation Corp. 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

What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts

July 30, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Given the variety of problems that can arise on a construction project, from defects to delays, it’s difficult to draft a construction contract that addresses every possible problem exactly right. However, so long as you adequately address the “big three” of scope, price and time, it’s also difficult to draft a construction contract wrong. That is, with one exception. And that one exception, in California, is home improvement contracts. In 2004, the California State Legislature enacted the state’s Home Improvement Business statute (Bus. & Prof. Code §§7150 et seq.). Section 7159 of the statute sets forth what must be included in home improvement contracts. It’s a section that could have been written by Felix Unger of the Odd Couple. In addition to setting forth required language that must be included in a home improvement contract, it directs where that language is to be set forth in a home improvement contract, and even how it is to be presented, down to type sizes. 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

Catch 22: “If You’re Moving Dirt, You Need to Control Your Dust” (But Don’t Use Potable Water!)

February 18, 2015 — Stephen McKae – California Construction Law Blog
Returning from an Oregon vacation this past Summer along I-5, I found frequent reminders of the extraordinary drought conditions prevailing across California. A grey smoky gloom blanketed the California-Oregon border from Ashland to Weed from at least five wildfires. The prediction of rains in the north state was more curse than blessing as lightning threatened to touch off tender-dry fuel in the forests and start more fires. Farmers tilling fields produced massive dust clouds. And under the I-5 bridge along the Sacramento River arm of Lake Shasta, the lake had receded to the original streambed. On NOAA’s Palmer Drought Severity Index, nearly all of California is listed as in a condition of extreme or severe drought, and the Governor has issued a Proclamation of Continued State of Emergency requiring water conservation measures affecting all California residents. Indeed, early August news reports indicate that hopes of relief from an El Nĩno year are waning. The State Water Resources Control Board’s Emergency Regulation No. 2014 issued July 15 mandates action to reduce water use and require larger water suppliers to activate their Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The emergency regulation will remain in effect until April 25, 2015 unless extended due to ongoing drought conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen McKae, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. McKae may be contacted at smckae@wendel.com

An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Tigard-Tualatin School District in Tigard, Oregon filed a lawsuit against Robinson Construction for water damage to the Alberta Rider Elementary school, built in 2005, according to The Oregonian. The school district “is seeking $1.4 million in damages.” According to the suit, as quoted by The Oregonian, the school district “holds Robinson responsible for faulty construction of the school’s panel siding, windows, doors, exterior walls and more.” Repairs began in December of 2011, reported The Oregonian, and the cost so far is more than one million: “The district had to replace parts of the ‘exterior wall cladding system’ and remove and reinstall ‘storefront windows and window/door assemblies to ensure watertight performance,’ in addition to other alterations, the lawsuit reads.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES