Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

My Employees Could Have COVID-19. What Now?

March 23, 2020 — Amy R. Patton, Leila S. Narvid, Matthew C. Lewis, Robert Tadashi Matsuishi & Sarah J. Odia - Payne & Fears
Updated Guidance as of March 19, 2020. You are concerned about potentially sick employees in the workplace. One employee is off work sick for a couple of days, and then wants to return to work. Another plans to return to work after a week of travel. Another appears to be sick at work. They are coughing, sneezing, and appear to be short of breath. You are concerned they may have COVID-19. What can you do? You're not the only one concerned -- your other employees are, too. Your public-facing employees want to wear masks to protect themselves. One employee tells you he doesn’t want to touch anything that others in the office have touched. What are your obligations to these employees? Below, we address questions relating to keeping employees safe from COVID-19 in the workplace without violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or employee privacy laws. Can I require an employee returning from days away from work due to illness to report the symptoms the employee was experiencing that kept him/her out of work? Short answer: yes, so long as the questions are limited to whether the employee has had flu-like symptoms. Though the ADA prohibits asking employees questions related to an employee disability, COVID-19 (like the seasonal flu) likely does not rise to the level of a disability, so asking an employee about flu-like (or COVID-19-like) symptoms is unlikely to elicit information related to a disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that an employer may ask if an employee is experiencing flu-like symptoms if the employee reports being ill during a pandemic. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Leila S. Narvid, Matthew C. Lewis, Robert Tadashi Matsuishi and Sarah J. Odia Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Ms. Narvid may be contacted at ln@paynefears.com Mr. Matthew may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Mr. Robert may be contacted at rtm@paynefears.com Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Genuine Dispute Summary Judgment Reversed for Abuse of Discretion and Trial of Fact Questions About Expert Opinions

July 27, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Fadeeff v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (No. A155691, filed 5/22/20 ord. pub. 6/8/20), a California appeals court held that triable issues of fact and the trial court’s failure to address a request for a continuance precluded summary judgment for an insurer under the genuine dispute doctrine. In Fadeeff, the policyholders made a claim to State Farm for smoke damage to their home from the 2015 Valley Fire in Hidden Valley Lake, California. With State Farm’s approval, the insureds retained the restoration company, ServPro, to assist with smoke and soot mitigation. State Farm documented smoke and soot on the interior walls, ceilings and carpeting, and on all exterior elevations, including on the deck and handrail. State Farm made a series of payments on the claim totaling about $50,000. The insureds then hired a public adjuster and submitted supplemental claims for further dwelling repairs and additional contents replacement, totaling approximately $75,000. State Farm responded by using its own independent adjuster to investigate, who was neither licensed as an adjuster, nor as a contractor. State Farm also retained forensic consultants for the structure and the HVAC system, but neither the independent adjuster nor the consultants were aware that State Farm had an internal operation guide for the use of third-party experts in handling first party claims, which guidelines were therefore not followed. In addition, the consultants made allegedly superficial inspections, with one attributing smoke and soot damage to other sources of combustion, including the insureds’ exterior propane barbecue, an internal wood fireplace and wood stove and candles that had been burned in the living room. None of the consultants asked the insureds when they had last used any of the sources of combustion. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Proving Impacts to Critical Path to Defeat Liquidated Damages Assessment

December 16, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a contractor is staring down the barrel of an owner’s assessment of liquidated damages, the burden will fall on the contractor to establish that the delay was attributable to the owner and the owner’s agents. The contractor will want to do this not only to defeat the assessment of liquidated damages, but because it will want to establish that the delay caused it to incur extended field overhead (general conditions) for which the owner is responsible. A contractor supports its burden by proving the impacts to its critical path. “In general, proving an allegation of government-caused delays without a means of showing the critical path is a steep prospect.” James Talcott Construction v. U.S., 2019 WL 1040383, *8 (Fed. Cl. 2019) (unreported opinion) (finding that because contractor did NOT present a critical path analysis it could not support its claim for delay caused by the government). Avoiding the assessment of liquidated damages means the contractor needs to support that it encountered excusable delay and it is/was entitled to an extension of time to complete the project. 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

Design-Assist Collaboration/Follow-up Post

March 16, 2020 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Shortly after posting the blog article “Design-Assist an Ambiguous Term Causing Conflict in the Construction Industry,” I received an email from Brian Perlberg, the Executive Director and Senior Counsel for ConsensusDocs. He brought two ConsensusDocs forms to my attention: ConsensusDocs 541 Design Assist Addendum and ConsensusDocs 300 Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA). In the ConsensusDocs model of “design-assist,” the lead design professional retains design responsibility but benefits from input and consultation from the construction team during design development. By contrast, in the design-build project delivery method, the constructor assumes design responsibility and liability for either the entire project design (design-build) or just a component of the design (delegated design). The ConsensusDocs 541 document goal is to provide “accurate information concerning program, quality, cost, constructability and schedule from all parties.” It provides a range of standard and optimal services during design development that essentially shifts the curve of selecting the construction manager (CM) and most importantly, special trade contractors, to much earlier in the process, perhaps as soon as the owner’s program is developed. This opens a world of possibilities for the design and construction team to collaborate early and often. The design professional, however, does not abdicate its design responsibility or authority in this process. The ultimate goal is to end the all-too-common wasteful cycle of design and redesign that is common in construction projects.[1] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

August 26, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Addressing issues left open in its seminal decision in Montrose, the California Supreme Court found that the language in the first-level excess policies meant that the insured could access the policies upon exhaustion of the directly underlying policies purchased for the same policy period. Truck Ins. Exchange v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 2024 Cal. LEXIS 3271 (Cal. June 17, 2024). From 1944 through the 1970's, Kaiser manufactured asbestos-containing products at numerous different facilities. By 2004, more than 24,000 claimants had filed product liability claims against Kaiser alleging that they had suffered bodily injury as a result of exposure to Kaiser's asbestos products. Kaiser tendered these claims to Truck, one of several primary insurers that had issued CGL policies to Kaiser. In 2001, Truck initiated this coverage action to determine its indemnity and defense obligations to Kaiser. Truck later amended its complaint to add a cause of action for contribution against several of Kaiser's excess insurers. The issue presently before the court was whether Truck was entitled to contribution from various coinsurers that issued first-level excess policies to Kaiser during the period in question. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Apartment Construction Ominously Nears 25-Year High

August 27, 2014 — Karen Weise – Bloomberg
If you live in a major U.S. city and look out over the skyline, chances are good you’ll see construction cranes. Lots of them. Only twice in the past 25 years have new apartment buildings been going up as fast as they are right now. That’s not necessarily a good omen. The first time, in February 2000, was right before the dot-com bubble burst. The second time, January 2006, came right before the housing bubble burst. Now we learn that builders broke ground on 423,000 new multifamily units in July, right before … who knows what? Monthly building data released earlier this week by the Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development showed that new home construction overall posted strong gains in July, with the highest number of new home starts in eight months. The comeback largely manifested in an uptick in apartment buildings with five or more units, which saw an almost 50 percent increase in new starts in July over a year earlier. By comparison, starts on single-family homes were up only about 10 percent over the same period. That’s part of the reason that the Northeast, with its large, dense cities, saw the biggest monthly increase, up 44 percent from June. That matches the analysis by Trulia (TRLA) Chief Economist Jed Kolko, who found that among metro areas, Boston and New York are building more than in the past. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen Weise, Bloomberg
Ms. Weise may be contacted at kweise@bloomberg.net

Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

April 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder. Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

February 07, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insureds attempt to secure coverage for ensuing losses after foundation damage was properly denied by the insurer. Walker v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6683 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014). Two provisions excluding coverage under Nationwide's homeowner's policy were key to the court's decision. Exclusion 3 (e) barred coverage for "continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water or stem over a period of time . . . ." Exclusion 3 (f) (6) precluded coverage for settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roof or ceiling. The policy also included a Dwelling Foundation Endorsement which covered settling, cracking, bulging of floor slabs or footings that supported the dwelling caused by seepage or leakage of water or steam. This endorsement stated the limit of liability would not exceed an amount equal to 15% of the limit of coverage for the dwelling. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES