SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure

November 21, 2018 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
Nov. 15, 2018 Update: After calling on Nov. 8 for a “complete structural evaluation” of San Francisco's 1.2-million-sq-ft SalesForce Transit Center, following the discovery on Sept. 25 of significant, mid-span cracks in the bottom flanges of twin parallel girders spanning 80 ft over Fremont Street, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority now says the problems with girders are localized. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

---

GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

January 02, 2024 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
Days after the Biden administration rule reinstated state authority under the U.S. Clean Water Act to delay or deny construction permits on projects with water quality impacts, attorneys general from 11 Republican-led states, along with the American Petroleum Association, National Hydropower Association and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, filed suit in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

February 21, 2013 — David M. McLain — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On January 17, 2013 Representative Fischer introduced House Bill 13-1090 into the Colorado House of Representatives. HB 1090 was assigned the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee. The bill, sponsored by Senator Tochtrop in the Senate, sets the following requirements for both private and public construction contracts: The owner and contractor must make regular progress payments approximately every 30 days to contractors and subcontractors for work actually performed. To receive the progress payments, the contractor and subcontractor must submit a progress payment invoice plus any required documents. A contractor must pass on the progress payment to the subcontractor within 5 days or by the end of the billing cycle. Interest accrues on unpaid progress payments. A contract may extend a billing cycle to 60 days, but the contract must duly warn of this. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

October 20, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Statutes of limitations are distinct from statutes of repose. There is a lot of confusion between the two. Generally, a statute of limitations is a law which sets the maximum period of time which one can wait before filing a lawsuit, depending on the type of case or claim. The periods vary by state and by type of claim. Most states also employ a “discovery rule,” which provides that the statute of limitations does not “accrue” until such time as the plaintiff knew or should have reasonably known that the injury or property damage has occurred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

---

Pennsylvania: Searching Questions Ahead of Oral Argument in Domtar

October 08, 2014 — Robert Caplan – White and Williams LLP
If you have been following our coverage of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Domtar Paper Co., you will recall that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided on May 29, 2014 to hear the subrogated insurer’s appeal,1 despite the Superior Court’s holding against the subrogated insurer—based primarily on its own defective case law2 —and its denial of reargument, presumably due to the insurer’s briefing follies.3 The parties in Domtar, as well as numerous amici curiae (friends of the court),4 have submitted their respective briefs over the last few months, and the Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument to take place on October 8, 2014 in Pittsburgh, Pa. The Court has framed the issue as: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?”5 There are three possible outcomes in Domtar. The first (and easiest) possible outcome for the Supreme Court would be to punt to the Pennsylvania General Assembly for a decision on the issue. Workers’ compensation legislation, perhaps more than any other type of legislation, “creates a highly structured balancing of competing interests.”6 It is basic civics that the legislature has a “superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing concerns.”7 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

February 18, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the insureds' negligence claim survived because it was not based upon breach of a duty created by the policy, but upon the alleged breach of a duty imposed by tort law. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co,, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3319 (Dec. 15, 2014). After purchasing their home, the insureds obtained a homeowner's policy from Erie. A separate endorsement covered loss to the property caused by "fungi," which was included as any form of mold. The endorsement obligated Erie to pay up to $5,000 for loss caused by mold. The policy required Erie to pay the cost of testing the air to confirm the absence or presence of mold. If mold was present, Erie was to pay for the cost of removal, including the cost of tearing out any part of the property needed to gain access to the mold. While renovating the basement, the insureds discovered two areas of black mold in close proximity to leaking water pipes. Erie was notified and sent an adjuster to view the mold. The adjuster took no action, but returned a couple of days later with an engineer. The adjuster and engineer informed the insureds that the mold was harmless and that health problems associated with mold were a media frenzy and overblown. 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

---

Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

June 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion in limine seeking to dismiss the insureds' complaint due to the absence of expert testimony. Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74069 (E.D. N.Y. May 30, 2014). During the policy period, the insureds noticed their house had serious structural problems, including cracks in the walls and floors that were pitched toward the rear of the house. The insureds had to move from their house. When they submitted a claim, it was denied by Lexington because the losses were caused by "wear and tear, deterioration, earth movement, settlement, shrinking, bulging or expansion of the property leading to cracking of structural components." The insureds sued. Lexington filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the insureds' expert and to dismiss the complaint for inability to offer prima facie proof of a covered loss absent such expert testimony. 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

---

California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals in Stanislaus County has reversed the decision of the lower court in Greg Opinski Construction Inc. v. City of Oakdale. The earlier court had awarded the city of judgment of $54,000 for late completion, $3,266 for repair of construction defects and interest, and $97,775 in attorneys’ fees. The late completion of the project was due to actions by the City of Oakdale, however, the court rejected Opinski’s argument that the California Supreme Court decision in Kiewit did not allow this, as his contract with the city established a procedure for claiming extensions.

The appeals court noted that the Kiewit decision has been “criticized as an unwarranted interference in the power of contracting parties to shift the risk of delays caused by one party onto the other party by forcing the second party to give the first notice of any intention to claim an extension of time based on delays caused by first.” They cited Sweet, a professor at Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school, that Kiewit “gutted” the “provision that conditions the contractor’s right to claim an extension of time for delays beyond his control.”

Further changes in California law in response to the Kiewit decision lead to the current situation which the court characterized as “if the contractor wished to claim it needed an extension of time because of delays caused by the city, the contractor was required to obtain a written change order by mutual consent or submit a claim in writing requesting a formal decision by the engineer.”

Opinski also argued that the lower court misinterpreted the contract. The Appeals court replied that “Opinski is mistaken.” He cited parts of the contract regarding the increase of time, but the court rejected these, noting that “an inability to agree is not the same as an express rejection.”

The court also rejects Opinski’s appeal that “the evidence the project was complete earlier than September 30, 2005, is weightier than the evidence to the contrary,” which they describe as “not a winning appellate argument.” The court points out that the role of an appeals court is not to reweigh the evidence, but to determine “whether the record contains substantial evidence in support of the judgment.”

The court did side with Opinski on one question of the escrow account. They rejected most of his arguments, repeating the line “Opinski is mistaken” several times. They decided that he was mistaken on the timing of the setoff decision and on whether the city was the prevailing party. However, the appeals court did find that Opinski was not liable for interest on the judgment.

The appeals court rejected the awarding of prejudgment interest to the city as the funds from which the judgment was drawn was held in an escrow account. The court noted that the city had access to the funds and could “access the funds when it determined that Opinski had breached the contract.” The appeals court noted that the judgment exhausted the escrow balance and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the amount own to Opinski.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---