Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

December 23, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Ensuring regulatory compliance of firewall constructions is getting a high-tech boost. Over the past 16 months, the construction team responsible for the iconic new Nyt Hospital Nordsjælland near Copenhagen used Imerso construction AI technology to achieve remarkable results. By using Imerso, the team enhanced work productivity while preventing costs and delays worth €5.2 million during the construction of the superstructure. Inspired by this success, the team led by Project Manager Anders Kaas has since been eager to explore the potential of the technology in other areas. The opportunity arose to address a topic that has traditionally posed significant challenges and expenses in numerous construction projects – ensuring regulatory compliance of fire barriers and firewall constructions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut

August 27, 2014 — Michael B. Marois, Zachary Tracer and Dan Hart – Bloomberg
The earthquake that struck northern California yesterday will lead to economic losses of as much as $4 billion, fueled by damaged wineries and shuttered businesses that rely on tourists. Insurers will probably cover about $2.1 billion, according to an estimate from Kinetic Analysis Corp., which projected total losses of about twice that sum. Costs borne by the industry may be limited because many homeowners don’t have earthquake coverage, according to the Insurance Information Institute. “The main source of claims could well be commercial claims, those coming from wineries and vineyards and other commercial interests,” Robert Hartwig, the institute’s president, said in an interview today. “It will take a while for the business owners to sort this out.” Mr. Marois may be contacted at mmarois@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hart may be contacted at dahart@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael B. Marois, Zachary Tracer and Dan Hart, Bloomberg

Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023

December 23, 2023 — Amanda G. Halter, Jillian Marullo & Ashleigh Myers - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) anticipates proposing a new rule that would revise its “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in Fall 2023. The proposed rule would modernize DOI’s rarely used simplified Type A procedures for assessing damages for natural resource injuries tailored at sites involving minor releases of hazardous substances, with a smaller scale and scope of natural resource injury occurring in either coastal and marine areas or Great Lakes environments (the “Type A Rule”). (See 88 Fed. Reg. 3373; see 43 C.F.R. Pt. 11 Subpt. D.) The Type A Rule was last updated in 1997. DOI previewed the proposal in January 2023 in its Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment’s (ORDA) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). In the ANPR, the ORDA surmised that the Type A Rule was rarely used in part because of its restricted scope, but also because “the model equation for each Type A environment is the functional part of the rule itself—with no provisions to reflect evolving toxicology, ecology, technology, or other scientific understanding without a formal amendment to the Type A Rule each time a parameter is modified.” Calling the existing rule “inefficient and inflexible,” the ORDA stated that its proposal to reformulate the rule “as a procedural structure” would “modernize the Type A process and develop a more flexible and enduring rule than what is provided by the two existing static models” (88 Fed. Reg. 3373). Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action

November 06, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
Judge Mollway, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Hawaii, found the insurer was not in bad faith for allegedly leading its insured to believe that construction defects would be covered under the policy. The court, however, allowed the insured's negligent misrepresentation claim to survive summary judgment. Ill Nat'l Ins. Co v. Nordic PCL Constr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151748 (D. Haw. Oct. 22, 2013). The insurer denied coverage when Nordic was sued for construction defects related to its construction of two Safeway stores in Honolulu. Prior to the issuance of the policies the Ninth Circuit had issued its opinion in Burlington Ins. Co. v .Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 398 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004), which predicted that Hawaii appellate courts would rule that construction defects were not "occurrences." Nevertheless, Nordic's witnesses contended when the policies were purchased, they believed construction defects were covered. Specifically, Nordic thought the policies provided completed operations coverage for property damage arising out of Nordic's subcontractors' work. Nordic further contended that only after the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals decided in Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins .Co., 123 Haw. 142 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) that construction defect claims did not constitute an "occurrence" did the insurer change its position and decide the policies did not cover construction defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Address 'Your Work' Exposure Within CPrL Policies With Faulty Workmanship Coverage

December 29, 2020 — Joseph Reynolds - Construction Executive
New faulty workmanship coverage forms have emerged to potentially address the “your work” exposure found in most contractors professional liability (CPrL) policies. Once offered by only a single carrier, several insurers have recently entered the marketplace to cover the cost to repair or replace faulty work or the related material costs associated with the “self-performed work” of general and trade contractors. Commonly serving as a separate insuring agreement and offered in carrier-specific CPrL policies, faulty workmanship coverage forms are designed to protect contractors from the “your work” claims triggered by project owners and other third parties. This includes the contractor’s workmanship as well as the equipment, parts and materials such as steel beams, epoxy activators and anchor bolts used to perform construction work. Insureds should be aware that exclusions and strict conditions apply. For instance, faulty workmanship policies typically do not cover resulting bodily injury and property damage and some policies even exclude project delays and other business risks that can arise from the claims of unhappy customers. Another potentially confusing issue is the scope of coverage offered under a ‘faulty work’ endorsement. While some faulty workmanship enhancements are specifically-designed to cover “your work,” claims, others may only cover the products manufactured or fabricated by the insured and not the work they perform or install. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Reynolds, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at joseph.reynolds@rtspecialty.com

OSHA Issues COVID-19 Guidance for Construction Industry

July 13, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This past month, after remaining relatively quiet following the coronavirus outbreak, OSHA began issuing industry-specific guidance on how to deal with the coronavirus in the workplace. Until this month, the only construction industry specific guidance issued by OSHA was an OSHA Alert entitled COVID-19 Guidance for the Construction Workforce, a one page document providing little more guidance than that workers should stay home if sick, wear masks and frequently wash hands to prevent spreading and catching the coronavirus, and to sanitize tools and work areas. Early this month, OSHA issued more comprehensive guidance for the construction industry. The guidance, as noted in the preface by OSHA is simply guidance, “is not a standard or regulation” and “creates no legal obligations. The guidance supplements general guidance applicable to all workplaces issued earlier by OSHA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Roadway Contractor Owed Duty of Care to Driver Injured Outside of Construction Zone

January 04, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
For the roadway contractor it appeared to be an open and shut case: Plaintiff car driver was stopped at a standard one-way “reversing lane closure” traffic control in which traffic going in one direction would be stopped while traffic going in the other direction was allowed to proceed, and then the procedure would be reversed. Plaintiff, while stopped at the traffic control, was rear-ended by another vehicle driven by George Smithson. Smithson testified that he “must have looked off to the side” at some point prior to the collision because he did not see plaintiff’s vehicle before hitting it. He also testified that the primary reason the accident happened was that he was not paying attention and that he knew of no other cause of the accident. For the roadway contractor you couldn’t ask for a better admission. And it ended in the trial court just the way you thought it would, with a win for the roadway contractor. That is, until it was appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

March 02, 2020 — Kevin Bonsignore - Wilke Fleury
The recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA” or the “Act”) goes into effect on January 1, 2020 and with it comes enhanced consumer protections for California residents against businesses that collect their personal information. Generally speaking, the CCPA requires that businesses provide consumers with information relating to the business’ access to and sharing of personal information. Accordingly, businesses should determine whether the CCPA will apply to them and, if so, what policies and procedures they should implement to comply with this new law. Application of the CCPA Importantly, the CCPA does not apply to all California business. The requirements of the CCPA only apply where a for-profit entity collects Consumers’ Personal Information, does business in the State of California, and satisfies one or more of the following: (1) has annual gross revenues in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000); (2) receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; or (3) derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information. (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(c)(1)(A)-(C).) Thus, as a practical matter, small “mom and pop” operations will likely not be subject to the CCPA, but most mid-size and large companies should review their own books or consult with an accountant to determine whether the CCPA applies to their business. Rights Granted to Consumers “Consumers,” as the term is used in the CCPA, means “any natural person who is a California resident…” (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(g).) This broad definition makes no carve-outs or exclusions for a business’s employees and, despite the traditional definition of the term “consumer,” does not seem to require that the resident purchase any goods or services. This definition seems intentional and was likely designed to prevent businesses from attempting to circumvent the requirements of the CCPA by arguing that the personal information they collect does not belong to “consumers” under the traditional meaning of the word. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Bonsignore, Wilke Fleury
Mr. Bonsignore may be contacted at kbonsignore@wilkefleury.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES