Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

A Tuesday With Lisa Colon

July 02, 2024 — Lisa Colon - The Dispute Resolver
As a seasoned construction lawyer, I've always prided myself on being independent and tough. However, my toughness was tested when my life took an unexpected turn. In 2013, I was diagnosed with a genetic cardiomyopathy, a condition which made it harder for my heart to pump blood. That diagnosis in itself was devasting since I had to change many things about the way I lived, including having to abandon running, my favorite hobby. After living 10 years in this new normal, in May 2023, I was told my right ventricle was no longer working and there were no further therapies available. I needed a heart transplant. The journey was long, arduous, and filled with both physical and emotional challenges. This life-altering experience not only gave me a new lease on life but also profoundly changed my perspective on practicing law. In this post, I will share three key lessons I learned from my heart transplant journey that have significantly impacted how I approach my legal practice. Lesson 1: The Importance of Patience and Persistence The journey to receiving a heart transplant is often fraught with uncertainty and long waiting periods. My new heart came quickly. I waited 22 days on the transplant list, but for me, the wait seemed interminable, filled with numerous hospital visits, medical tests, and moments of despair. Then came the recovery. The early days were filled with weekly biopsies, unimaginable nerve pain, and days of wondering if things would ever get better. During this time, I learned the true meaning of patience. Each day was a test of my resolve, and giving up was never an option. I had to persist through the toughest days, believing that a positive outcome was possible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa Colon, Saul Ewing
Ms. Colon may be contacted at lisa.colon@saul.com

Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

May 01, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On March 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided National Parks Conservation Assoc. v. Todd T. Simonite, Lieutenant General, et al. The case involves an application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a construction permit to build electric power lines over the “historic James River, from whose waters Captain John Smith explored the New World.” The Corps concluded after reviewing the thousands of comments submitted to it in connection with this application, and after considering the views of several government agencies and conservation groups, that an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) was not required, and that its Environmental Assessment assured the Corps that the project would not result is significant environmental impacts. The Court of Appeals has concluded that, based on this evidence, the Corps’ refusal to prepare an EIS thoroughly discussing all these points was arbitrary and capricious. The Corps has been ordered to prepare the EIS and to take special note of its obligations under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

March 06, 2022 — Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Courts across the nation have struggled to determine whether insurance policies that provide coverage for “direct physical loss or damage” insure losses stemming from COVID-19. Many courts have been applying an overly stringent pleading standard, inappropriately granting insurers’ motions to dismiss as a result of the insureds’ purported failure to allege that COVID-19 caused damages covered by their policies or because certain exclusions supposedly barred coverage. However, two New Jersey state courts recently decided these issues in favor of the insureds in well-reasoned opinions that give proper deference to procedural pleading standards and substantive insurance coverage law. A. COVID-19 causes “direct physical loss or damage” In AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., the New Jersey Superior Court held that physical alteration to an insured’s property is not a prerequisite to coverage for losses due to COVID-19. The insured, Ocean Casino, sued multiple insurers for COVID-19 losses, alleging that the virus caused Ocean Casino to shut down and suffer a loss of use of its property. Looking at the language of the policies, the court explained that each policy’s insuring agreement substantially read the same:

“This policy insures against direct physical loss of, or damage caused by, a covered cause of loss to covered property, at an insured location [the casino] … subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated in this policy.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

Property Damage to Non-Defective Work Is Covered

February 18, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Hampshire Supreme Court found some of the property damage evolving from the insured's portion of the work was covered under its liability policy. Cogswell Farm Condo. Ass'n v. Tower Group, Inc., 2015 N.H. LEXIS 3 (N.H. Jan. 13, 2015). Lemery Building Company, Inc. constructed and developed 24 residential condominium units. After units were sold, the Cogswell Farm Condominium Association sued Lemery, asserting that the "weather barrier" components of the units were defectively constructed and resulted in damage to the units due to water leaks. Cogswell then sued its insurer, Tower Group, Inc., seeking a declaratory judgment that its claims against Lemery were covered. The trial court eventually determined that exclusions J (1) and J (6) both applied to exclude coverage. Exclusion J (1) excluded coverage for "property damage" to property that Lemery "owns, rents, or occupies." Exclusion J (6) excluded coverage for property damage to "[t] hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because [Lemery's] work was incorrectly performed on it." 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

Iowa Tornado Flattens Homes, Businesses and Wind Turbines

June 17, 2024 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
Business owners and residents are picking up the pieces after a tornado tore through south-central Iowa May 21, devastating the town of Greenfield, about 60 miles southwest of Des Moines, by destroying homes and businesses, toppling MidAmerican Energy Co. wind turbines and damaging the Adair County Memorial Hospital. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

January 12, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Construction projects are complex, multi-partied, multi-disciplinary endeavors, in which subcontracting all or a portion of the work to be performed is not uncommon. When subcontracting work, parties usually make it clear in their contracts that the party performing work is acting as an “independent contractor.” Here’s a fairly typical provision from the AIA A201 General Conditions:

The parties agree that the contractual relationship on Contractor to Owner is one solely of an independent contractor in all respects and that the Contract Documents do not in any way create a partnership, joint venture or any other relationship between Owner and Contractor other than the contractual relationship as specified in this Agreement.

These provisions are intended to shield the contracting party from claims that it is responsible for workers’ compensation premiums, retirement contributions, health care insurance, or other benefits provided for the benefit of employees of the company performing the work. Fair enough. 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

Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

January 07, 2015 — William J. Taylor and Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLP
In Scungio Borst Assocs. v. 410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLC, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that an individual principal/shareholder of a property owner could not be held personally liable as an “agent of the owner” for unpaid invoices, penalties, and attorneys fees under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, even though the property owner itself had failed to make payments allegedly due under a construction contract. CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is designed to protect contractors and subcontractors from nonpayment and which, to that end, establishes rules and deadlines for payment under construction contracts between property owners, contractors, and subcontractors. An owner or contractor who does not adhere to the Act’s payment requirements is subject to the imposition of interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees. In this recent case, the property owner, a limited liability company, had retained the plaintiff contractor to perform construction services on a condominium project. Upon completion of the work, the contractor was not paid approximately $1.5 million that it was owed under the contract. The contractor filed suit under CASPA to obtain the payment it was owed plus interest, penalties and fees, and named both the property owner and its individual principal as defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment to the individual principal on all claims asserted against him, and the contractor appealed, arguing that CASPA allows for claims against both a property owner and its principal when the principal is an “agent of the owner acting with the owner’s authority.” Reprinted courtesy of Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP and William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Burden Supporting Termination for Default

January 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Terminating a contractor for default is a “‘drastic sanction’ and ‘should be imposed (or sustained) only for good grounds and on solid evidence.’” Cherokee General Corp. v. U.S., 150 Fed.Cl. 270, 278 (Fed.Cl. 2020) (citation omitted). This is true with any termination for default because terminating a contract for default is the harshest recourse that can be taken under a contract. It is a caused-based termination. For this reason, the party terminating a contract for default needs to be in a position to carry its burden supporting the evidentiary basis in exercising the default-based (or caused-based) termination. Stated differently, the party terminating a contract for default needs to justify the reasonableness in terminating the contract for default. A party looking to terminate a contract for default should smartly work with counsel to best position its justification in exercising the termination for default. Likewise, a contractor terminated for default should immediately work with counsel to best position the unreasonableness or the lack of justification for the default-based termination. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES