SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Narrow House Has Wide Opposition

January 17, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A small building project on Staten Island is causing some big complaints. While many residents of the area are still dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, residents in the Port Richmond neighborhood are concerned about a house that is being built on a lot that at its widest is only seventeen feet. On the other end, the lot is only eleven feet wide. Initially, the Staten Island did not give permission to build on the Orange Avenue lot, but the developer went to the city’s Board of Standards and Appeals who gave permission. The daughter of one neighbor described the foundation as looking “like a swimming pool, not a house.” Her mother’s house has a 40-foot frontage. Another neighbor (37-foot frontage) described the plans to build the narrow house as “pretty stupid.” Work currently stopped on the building over complaints that the site’s fence was incomplete. After the developer repairs the fence, the site needs to be inspected before work continues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses

January 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that in calculating interest on the expense of repairing construction defects would start at the time that the defect was repaired. In 2009, the Colorado State Legislature introduced a bill that would have made homeowners eligible for interest back to the purchase date of their homes. The Colorado Springs Business Journal notes that the Colorado Springs Housing and Building Association is concerned that the legislature might take up the issue again, in which case, the HBA would oppose it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

August 30, 2021 — Joseph L. Cohen, W. Mason & Sean Milani-nia - ConsensusDocs
Consider the following scenario: the construction project is ready to proceed. The deal is done. The agreements have all been carefully crafted, with detailed provisions on insurance dedicated to reducing risk. Those provisions require the downstream trade contractors to furnish certificates of insurance listing the owner and prime contractor as additional insureds on the downstream contractor’s policies of insurance. A provision in the prime contract further requires the prime contractor to provide the owner with a certificate of insurance showing the owner as an additional insured on the prime contractor’s policies. At the ceremonial ground-breaking and right before work commences, the downstream contractors deliver their insurance certificates to the prime contractor and the prime contractor delivers its certificate plus the downstream certificates to the owner. From there, each insurance certificate will begin its final destination to the project file (either electronic or physical) where, with any luck, it will serve the regular stint before being discarded after the project’s successful conclusion. Otherwise, it will be retrieved under much stress and heavy scrutiny. The acceptance of insurance certificates is often viewed as standard industry practice, but should it be? The answer is a resounding “no.” There are many form development and construction agreements in circulation that deem insurance certificates to be acceptable evidence of insurance. But, a certificate of insurance should not be relied upon because it does not mean that insurance has been placed. You deserve real evidence that the requisite additional insured coverage is in place (in the form of a policy endorsement), and here is why. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild, W. Mason, Fox Rothschild and Sean Milani-nia, Fox Rothschild Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jlcohen@foxrothschild.com Mr. Mason may be contacted at wmason@foxrothschild.com Mr. Milani-nia may be contacted at smilani@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

May 13, 2019 — Edward M. Koch & Michael Jervis - White and Williams LLP
The United States Supreme Court recently approved and adopted amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 concerning class action practice as proposed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The amended rule went into effect on December 1, 2018. The amendments do not affect the core of the rule – the criteria for obtaining class certification. Instead, the changes are more subtle adjustments that update and modernize procedures and processes for notification to class members and obtaining approval of class settlements. Nonetheless, although the amendments are not breathtaking, there are important changes. The first set of amendments apply to Rule 23(e), governing the process of settlement of a class action. First, the amendment makes explicit that the subsection applies not just to already certified classes, but also “a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.” The changes also add some discretion of the court concerning when notice of a proposed settlement and settlement class should be provided. As part of the settlement approval process, the parties now are expressly required to give the court “information sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposal to the class.” The giving of notice is justified only if that information is sufficient to allow the court to determine it is likely to approve the proposed settlement and certify the class. Once notice is approved, the new rule recognizes modern developments by allowing that notice may be by “United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” The rule thus recognizes that in many cases traditional mail notice may still be best; in others e-mail notification might be the best way to reach class members. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Better Building Rules Would Help U.K.'s Flooding Woes, CEP Says

January 06, 2016 — Jill Ward – Bloomberg
Tighter construction restrictions and incentives to build outside flood-prone areas would minimize damage to the U.K. economy from heavy rain and rising water levels, according to the Centre for Economic Performance. Thousands of families across northern England and Scotland have evacuated their homes or been left without power in recent weeks, while KPMG LLP estimated the economic loss in December was more than 5 billion pounds ($7.3 billion). While low-lying areas are more likely to be hit by large-scale floods, businesses and homes don’t tend to move to safer locations, according to the CEP’s analysis of data from 2003 to 2008. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jill Ward, Bloomberg

---

Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

January 12, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court, district of Hawaii, recently granted the insured's motion for remand. Catholic Foreign Mission Society of Am., Inc. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., Civ. No. 14-00420, Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Remand and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (D. Haw. Dec. 30, 2014) [Order here]. [Full disclosure - our office represents the insured, Maryknoll]. Maryknoll was sued in several lawsuits filed in Hawaii state court by victims of alleged sexual abuse occurring as far back as the 1950s by members of the clergy. Maryknoll was insured during these periods under liability policies issued by various carriers. The successor of Royal Globe Insurance Company, Arrowood Indemnity Company, agreed to defend some of the underlying lawsuits, but declined to defend others. The Travelers Companies, Inc. refused to defend. 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

---

Construction Defects #10 On DBJ’s Top News Stories of 2015

December 10, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Denver Business Journal’s top 15 news stories of 2015 covers the “Battle Over Construction Defects.” Some developers and other groups have blamed the lack of condominium development in Denver and other Colorado cities on the state’s defect laws. After a construction-defects reform bill failed to pass the Colorado Legislature, several cities passed construction defect-related ordinances, according to the Denver Business Journal: “In November the Denver City Council voted 12-1 to approve an ordinance aimed at making it harder to file class-action lawsuits over construction defects within the city.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

October 01, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand. Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---