Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Disrupt a Broken Industry—The Industrial Construction Sandbox

November 23, 2020 — Brian Sayre - Construction Executive
The existing built environment structure—arguably—is antiquated and must be disrupted to meet the rapidly changing demands of the industry. The built environment struggles with labor shortages, addressing demand, sustainability needs, cost controls, affordability and efficiency gains. Even with the advancement of emerging technology trends, the construction industry still lags behind more technologically advanced verticals. What’s missing? Something is needed beyond incremental change that will truly disrupt the industry, increase the value of other innovations and tackle industry challenges. The answer is industrialized construction technology with offsite manufacturing as the cornerstone. Technology innovation becomes exponentially more valuable when placed in this context. Shadow Ventures, a venture capital firm focused on the built environment, set out to test these theories with verifiable research published this year in a report titled, “Disrupt a Broken Industry—The Industrial Construction Sandbox.” Reprinted courtesy of Brian Sayre, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Residential Mortgage Lenders and Servicers Beware of Changes to Rule 3002.1

December 08, 2016 — James C. Vandermark & Amy E. Vulio – White and Williams LLP
This December, residential mortgage lenders and servicers will be required to comply with new requirements for providing notices of payment changes (PCNs) and post-petition fees, expenses, and charges (PPFNs) to mortgage borrowers in Chapter 13 bankruptcies. While the new Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 will provide much needed clarity, it will also significantly increase the number of PCNs and PPFNs that lenders will need to file. Reprinted courtesy of James C. Vandermark, White and Williams LLP and Amy E. Vulio, White and Williams LLP Mr. Vandermark may be contacted at vandermarkj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Vulpio may be contacted at vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work

January 06, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a contractor is defaulted under a performance bond, can its surety hire the same defaulted contractor to complete the work? Stated differently, can the performance bond surety engage its defaulted bond-principal in taking over and completing the same work the contractor was defaulted under? The answer is “yes” if you are dealing with a standard form AIA A312 performance bond (and other bond forms that contain analogous language), as demonstrated by the recent decision in Seawatch at Marathon Condominium Association, Inc. v. The Guarantee Company of North America, 2019 WL 4850194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). In this case, a condominium association hired a contractor in a multi-million dollar contract to renovate condominium buildings. The contractor provided the association, as the obligee, a performance bond written on an AIA A312 performance bond form. During construction, the association declared the contractor in default and terminated the contractor. In doing so, the association demanded that the performance bond surety make an election under paragraph 4 of the AIA A312 bond form that gave the surety the following options: 4.1 Arrange for the CONTRACTOR, with consent of the OWNER, to perform and complete the Contract; or 4.2 Undertake to perform and complete the Contract itself, through its agents or through independent contractors; or 4.3 Obtain bids or negotiated proposals from qualified contractors acceptable to the OWNER for a contract for performance and completion of the Contract, arrange for a contract to be prepared for execution by the OWNER and the contractor selected with the OWNER’S concurrence, to be secured with performance and payment bonds executed by a qualified surety equivalent to the Bonds Issued on the Contract, and pay to the OWNER the amount of damages as described in paragraph 6 in excess of the Balance of the Contract Price incurred by the OWNER resulting from the CONTRACTOR Default; or 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

Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

November 21, 2018 — CDJ STAFF
In a good, recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit in International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Americabe-Moriarity, JV, 2018 WL 5306683 (11th Cir. 2018), held that Florida Statute s. 57.105(7) cannot be used to shift attorney’s fees in a contractual indemnification clause in a dispute between a general contractor and subcontractor’s performance bond surety, when the dispute does not involve an actual indemnification claim stemming from a third-party. In this case, a prime contractor terminated a subcontractor and looked to the subcontractor’s performance bond surety to pay for the completion work. The subcontractor had a standard AIA A312 performance bond that requires the prime contractor to comply with the terms of the bond, as well as the incorporated subcontract, in order to trigger the surety’s obligations under the bond. The surety filed an action for declaratory relief against the prime contractor arguing that the prime contractor breached the terms of the performance bond through non-compliance thereby discharging the surety’s obligations. The trial court agreed and the surety moved for attorney’s fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Another TV Fried as Georgia Leads U.S. in Lightning Costs

June 26, 2014 — Kelly Gilblom – Bloomberg
Georgia tops a shocking list: most likely place to have property damaged by lightning. Georgia residents were reimbursed for $56 million of lightning-related damage in homes last year tied to more than 11,000 claims, according to a top-10 list from the Insurance Information Institute. Texas ranked second at $54.2 million. Once lightning is “in the wiring, it’s electrifying anything connected to that,” John Jensenius, a lightning-safety specialist at the National Weather Service, said today in a phone interview. “Televisions, and even things like microwaves, they all have little chips in them so they all can get fried pretty easily.” Lightning cost insurers $5,869 per claim in the U.S. last year, more than double the average in 2004, as homeowners added electronics such as computers and high-definition televisions. Still, the total expense for the industry declined 8.4 percent nationwide in that span, to $673.5 million in 2013, because better lightning-protection systems and fewer storms decreased the frequency of claims, the industry group said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kelly Gilblom, Bloomberg
Ms. Gilblom may be contacted at kgilblom@bloomberg.net

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

August 04, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the insurer had a duty to defend a construction defect case. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pulte Home Corp., 2015 Ill App. Unpub. LEXIS 1039 (Ill. Ct. App. May 15, 2015). Pulte Home Corporation was a developer who developed and constructed a residential condominium development known as The Reserve of Elgin (The Reserve). G.H. Siding was subcontracted by Pulte to work on the development, including the installation of exterior siding. The Reserve Homeowners Association (HOA) filed suit against Pulte and James Hardie Building Products Inc., the company that manufactured the exterior siding. The complaint alleged that Pulte developed, designed, constructed and sold the units and common areas. Pulte installed siding manufactured by Hardie on the exterior of the units. The siding was allegedly defective. The HOA alleged breach of implied warranty of habitability and breach of contract by Pulte. Hardie was sued for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warrant of habitability. 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

The ALI Restatement – What Lies Ahead?

July 30, 2018 — Adam M. Berardi & Sara C. Tilitz - Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
The American Law Institute voted on May 22, 2018 to approve the final draft of its “Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance.” This was the culmination of an eight-year project that evolved through 29 drafts resulting in a nearly 500-page final product. At least nine courts cited to the Restatement while it was still in draft form. On June 28, 2018, White and Williams LLP had the privilege of hosting a seminar about the Restatement, chaired by the Reporter for the Restatement, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Tom Baker, and Randy Maniloff of White and Williams, author of “General Liability Insurance Coverage, Key Issues In Every State.” The seminar was geared toward assisting members of the liability insurance community in navigating the key provisions of the Restatement, including how they compare and contrast with existing case law and the role the Restatement may play in courts’ decision-making processes going forward. Reprinted courtesy of Adam M. Berardi , White and Williams, LLP and Sara C. Tilitz, White and Williams, LLP Mr. Berardi may be contacted at berardia@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Tilitz may be contacted at tilitzs@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hurry Up and Wait! Cal/OSHA Hits Pause on Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention

June 14, 2021 — Michael Studenka & Jasmine Shams - Newmeyer Dillion
Employers scrambling to prepare for the June 15th Reopening announced by Governor Newsom have spent the last week pouring over the revised Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention (“Revised ETS”) approved by the Cal/OSHA Standards Board on June 3, 2021. After last night’s meeting of the Standards Board, however, it’s time to hit pause. Last night, the Cal OSHA Standards Board held a specialty meeting to reconsider its Revised ETS in light of the latest guidance on face coverings issued by the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) on June 7, 2021. Following a presentation by the CDPH and extensive public comment, the Cal OSHA Standards Board voted unanimously to withdraw the Revised ETS and to take up the issue again at its next scheduled meeting on June 17, 2021. The net result in the interim is that California employers who intend to reopen on June 15 must initially comply with all of the requirements of the Cal/OSHA Standards Board Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention as originally issued on November 20, 2020, including but not limited to, its social distancing, physical partitioning and mask wearing requirements. Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Studenka, Newmeyer Dillion and Jasmine Shams, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Studenka may be contacted at michael.studenka@ndlf.com Ms. Shams may be contacted at jasmine.shams@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES