SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

January 08, 2019 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
The underlying causes of the trouble at San Francisco’s 4.5-block-long Salesforce Transit Center are coming into focus. A combination of low fracture toughness deep inside thick steel plates, cracks present as a consequence of normal steel fabrication and stress levels from loads, which are a function of design, apparently caused brittle fractures in the bottom flanges of the center's twin built-up plate girders that span 80 ft across Fremont Street. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

---

Balancing Cybersecurity Threats in Smart Cities: Is the Potential Convenience of “Smart” Intersections Worth the Risk?

September 02, 2024 — James P. Bobotek & Brian E. Finch - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The term “smart cities” has become popular parlance for municipalities’ attempts to enhance delivery of urban services and infrastructure through information and communications technology. While they may conjure images of neon-lit high rises or streetscapes populated by sleek, hovering vehicles, a bit like the 1960s-era The Jetsons cartoon envisioned our high-tech future, the reality of smart cities has begun to emerge in more subtle, less glamourous forms. Cities tend to focus on wastewater monitoring, traffic control and energy distribution technologies in their efforts to become incrementally “smarter.” Smart cities lean heavily on automation, internet connectivity and the Internet of Things (IoT)—including smartphones, connected cars and a host of web-based appliances and utilities—to boost the delivery and quality of essential urban services and infrastructure like transit, sanitation, water, energy, emergency response and more. Successful smart cities need infrastructure that supports such connectivity, and they pull data from hundreds, or even thousands, of sensors that can be used to analyze and shepherd the direction of resources. Reprinted courtesy of James P. Bobotek, Pillsbury and Brian E. Finch, Pillsbury Mr. Bobotek may be contacted at james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Finch may be contacted at brian.finch@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

June 02, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
In its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”). In a prior post, we discussed Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute. HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:

A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.

(Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

Home Prices Expected to Increase All Over the U.S.

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a survey of the National Association of Realtors (as quoted by the Housing Wire), home prices are expected “to increase in all states and the District of Columbia over the next 12 months, with most of the heavy growth in Florida, Texas, and California, among other states.” The highest expected price growth was “in states with low inventory levels, strong cash sales, and strong growth sectors (e.g., technology, oil).” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.



The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.



The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.



In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.



The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.



A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”



Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

February 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Douglas E. Cameron, Jay M. Levin, and Traci S. Rea look at the implications of a pair of Pennsylvania court decisions from 2012. The judge in both cases, Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas held that comprehensive general liability policies do not cover any claims that arise from faulty workmanship. The three conclude that "these holdings may preclude coverage for any tort claims asserted against your company if the allegations involve construction defects, even if you are sued for property damage or personal injury by a third party to your construction contract." They note that both decisions have been appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Fall Forum Meeting in Pittsburgh

December 03, 2024 — Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute Resolver
Over 500 construction law attorneys and consultants convened last week at the confluence of three rivers in what became the first-ever meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania of the ABA Forum on Construction Law. The Steel City was a fitting backdrop for a meeting focused on issues of design in construction. Thanks to the hard work of many, most notably the newly minted Forum Chair Keith Bergeron and Meeting Coordinators Kendall Woods and Michael Clark, the meeting's attendees brought home new connections and a host of new lessons learned. Read on for my top 10 take-aways from the 2024 Fall Meeting in Pittsburgh and feel free to share yours in the comments below. 10. An architect's standard of care does not require perfection. A common refrain across many of the meeting's plenary sessions was that any design that is produced by human hands will never be perfect. In recognition of our own fallibility, the legal standard to which design professionals will be held to account does not require that their designs be error-free. A design professional must generally exercise the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by professionals performing similar services under similar circumstances. Establishing what that means in each locality will vary and will most likely need to be supported by the expert opinion of another practicing design professional. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

---

New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

December 20, 2017 — Bethany Barrese & Samantha Martino - Case Alert Blog
On November 20th, the New York Court of Appeals reinstated a case seeking more than six million dollars in damages against the insurers for DHL Worldwide Express Inc. (“DHL”), originating from a fatal head-on car crash between Claudia Carlson and a truck owned by MVP Delivery and Logistics Inc. (“MVP”), a DHL contractor. The truck, which bore DHL’s logo, was owned by MVP and driven by an MVP employee. The MVP employee was running an errand unrelated to his job at the time of the accident. Mrs. Carlson’s husband sued the employee, DHL, and MVP. The jury award of $20 million was reduced to $7.3 million by the Appellate Division. MVP’s insurer paid Mr. Carlson just over $1 million, and the employee assigned his rights to any other insurance coverage to Mr. Carlson Mr. Carlson sued DHL and its insurers, seeking the balance of the outstanding judgment pursuant to New York Insurance Law § 3420. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss Mr. Carlson’s claims, which dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division on the basis that § 3420 did not apply since the policies in question were not “issued or delivered” in New York; they had been issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and Florida. The Court of Appeals was subsequently presented with two questions: (1) whether the DHL policies fell within the purview of Insurance Law § 3420 as policies “issued or delivered” in New York; and (2) whether MVP was an “insured” pursuant to the “hired auto” provisions of DHL’s policies. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---