SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Lewis Brisbois Promotes 35 to Partnership

March 15, 2021 — Lewis Brisbois
Lewis Brisbois is proud to announce the promotion of 35 of its associates to partner. With these promotions, Lewis Brisbois’ total partnership comes to 933 across its 53 offices. The diverse class of newly promoted attorneys includes 15 women, which brings the total percentage of female partners at Lewis Brisbois to 33%. Los Angeles Managing Partner Jana I. Lubert expressed her excitement about the recent promotions, stating, “On behalf of the Management Committee, I congratulate these outstanding attorneys on their achievement. They have demonstrated an exceptional level of dedication to Lewis Brisbois and to our clients, especially during this difficult past year. I am particularly proud of the diversity that exists across this group.” Similarly, San Bernardino and Chief Diversity Partner Rima M. Badawiya shared her enthusiasm over the diversity of the new partners, explaining, “This group of exceptional attorneys, who have been promoted based upon their extraordinary performance, represents the diversity that exists throughout Lewis Brisbois and our commitment to advancing those who achieve at the highest level.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Francis Manchisi of Wilson Elser discussed how several industries—including construction—are using unmanned aircraft systems or unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly referred to as drones, and are either exploiting legal loopholes or ignoring laws altogether. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has recently released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is now in a 60-day “notice and comment” period that is open to the public. Once that period ends, the FAA will consider the comments before putting the rules into law. According to Manchisi, the proposed rules include:

• Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg).
• Unmanned aircraft must remain within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the operator or visual observer.
• Maximum altitude is 500 feet above ground level.
• Preflight inspection by the operator is required.
• Operators are required to obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a sUAS rating from the FAA.

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

---

Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

March 23, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
How are delay damages treated when two subcontractors cause a mutual or concurrent delay to the project? Assume multiple subcontractors concurrently contributed to an impact to the critical path resulting in a delay to the project. The delay caused the prime contractor to: (1) be assessed liquidated damages from the owner and (2) incur extended general conditions. The prime contractor will be looking to the subcontractors for reimbursement for any liquidated damages it is assessed along with its extended general conditions costs. There is really no great case that addresses this point when two (or more) subcontractors mutually or concurrently delay the project. It is also not uncommon, and frankly expected, that a subcontractor will point the finger at another subcontractor for the cause of the delay or that another subcontractor was concurrently delaying the project. The prime contractor should absolutely, without any exception, undertake efforts with a scheduling consultant to allocate the delay caused by subcontractors. Taking an approach that joint and several liability applies between multiple subcontractors and/or not trying to apportion delay because the subcontractors concurrently delayed the critical path at the same time is probably not the best approach. The prime contractor should have an expert render an opinion as to the allocation of the delay period amongst responsible subcontractors that delayed the critical path. Not doing so, in my opinion, is a mistake. 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

---

3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

October 07, 2019 — Mahmut Ekenel & Melissa Sanchez - Construction Executive
The mention of 3D printing alone is enough to get people excited, often conjuring images of a desktop console that can download and create three dimensional objects such as prototypes, or mechanical parts. And yet, in recent years the technology has given way to a slight impatience, as people begin to wonder how and when it will have a direct impact on both their lifestyles and their businesses. The construction industry has been quick to take advantage of these innovations, and the effects are tangible, especially regarding building safety. The 3D construction technology allows for several key advantages in terms of faster construction times, uncompromised quality of construction and lower costs—allowing for affordable dwellings to be quickly built for people in need. These advantages also lead to safety improvements during the building process. The ability to accelerate construction time without requiring an increase in labor results in a fewer construction-related workplace injuries and a reduction in material waste, making it an environmentally friendly construction method as well. ICC-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), a subsidiary of the International Code Council (ICC) which develops model codes and standards (i.e. International Building Code, International Residential Code) and delivers a wide array of building safety services, has taken the lead on developing acceptance criteria to address building code compliance of 3D printed construction. Currently, 3D construction technology is not within the provisions of the International Building Code (IBC) or International Residential Code (IRC). The acceptance criteria introduces new compliance measures for interior and exterior 3D printed concrete walls (with and without structural steel reinforcement), load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, and shear walls in one-story, single-unit, residential dwellings. The 3D walls are constructed by printing two outer layers of 3D concrete and then filling the core with 3D concrete to form a solid wall. Reprinted courtesy of Mahmut Ekenel & Melissa Sanchez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Ekenel may be contacted at mekenel@icc-es.org Ms. Sanchez may be contacted at msanchez@icc-es.org Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law write Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly addressing the question of “whether defective construction constitutes an ‘occurrence’ (and therefore may be covered) under liability insurance policies.” They note that some courts have held that construction defects are not an occurrence but instead are the “natural consequence of performing substandard work.” Other courts conclude that while construction defects are not occurrences, “the resulting damage may be covered because it was fortuitous and unintended.” And, finally, other courts have concluded that “defective construction work itself is accidental and the inured rarely expects construction defects.” Mandel and Raab put forth that “these decisions essentially provide insured with huge, unintended and unfair windfalls – performance bonds for basically no premium.” Legislatures have also looked at this issue, passing laws that mandate that construction defects are occurrences. These are all fairly recent and the courts have yet to address these laws, and Mandel and Raab note that “it is unclear what their ultimate effect on the ‘occurrence’ issue will be.” They do not expect the laws to end litigation over whether construction defects are occurrences. Finally, they discuss what the ultimate results of these court decisions and laws will be. Insurers might write more policy exclusions, or increase premiums, or even cease insuring construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

July 15, 2019 — Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff & Paul Monte - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The normal project and contractual risks faced by contractors, consultants and suppliers to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority are considerable. A new law and regulations mandating that the MTA debar contractors, consultants and suppliers for unexcused schedule and cost overruns creates a new and unfair existential risk. The new law, Public Authorities Law Section 1279-h, slipped into the New York State budget bill and passed without public comment, was enacted on April 12, 2019. Implementing regulations were issued on June 5, 2019, and mandate that the MTA debar contractors (defined to include consultants, vendors and suppliers) if they: (1) fail to achieve substantial completion of their contractual obligations within 10% of the adjusted contract time; or (2) present claims for additional compensation that are denied in an amount that exceeds the total adjusted contract amount by 10% or more.[1] To say that your business and your livelihood are at risk is not an overstatement. The MTA umbrella includes the New York City Transit Authority, MTA Capital Construction, Bridges & Tunnels, Long Island Railroad and Metro North, among others. A debarment by one of these authorities will lead to a debarment by all of them, and then to a debarment by all New York State agencies and authorities,[2] and possibly debarment across state lines. Public and major private owners, as part of their RFP and procurement processes, routinely inquire regarding a bidding contractor’s debarment history. The risk is to new contracts and, because the MTA has decided to give retroactive effect to the law and regulations, to contracts that are already ongoing (even though these risks could not have been considered, priced or agreed to by contractors or their sureties). Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff and Paul Monte Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

December 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Construction defect claims are now occurrences for insurance purposes in four states, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, and South Carolina, yet there are still frustrations for commercial general liability policyholders. Business Insurance describes court decisions on whether construction defect claims are covered as “incongruous,” and this drives up coverage and litigation costs. Construction firms often find they are defending themselves on two fronts, both the construction defect claim and also whether their insurance covers it.

Frank Armstrong, the Senior Vice President and National Director of Construction Claims for Willis North America says that the problem starts with the word “occurrence,” as various state courts have different interpretations of the word. “Certain pieces of it don’t fit well, at lest according to some courts in the country, with coverage for construction defect risks.”

Another insurance executive, Julian Ehlich, the Senior Vice President of Claims for Aon Risk Solutions’ construction services group notes that “jurisdictions differ, so policyholders don’t know what they’re going to get.”

Read the full story…

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

---

Illinois Appellate Court Finds Insurer Estopped From Denying Coverage Where Declaratory Judgment Suit Filed Too Late

August 07, 2018 — TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In an unpublished opinion from the Illinois Appellate Court, Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. Badger Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 IL App (1st) 171774-U, the court held that because an insurer breached its duty to defend and failed to file a declaratory judgment action before the underlying lawsuit was resolved, it was estopped from denying coverage for the default judgment entered against its insured in the underlying lawsuit. The underlying lawsuit concerned a claim that plaintiff’s property allegedly sustained damage when the insured performed work on the plaintiff’s residence. The complaint in the underlying lawsuit did not specifically identify when the property damage occurred. However, the complaint did state that the insurer’s investigator alerted it in 2010 that the property damage was due to the insured’s faulty work during the policy period. The insurer did not defend the insured during the action and a default judgment was entered against the insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

---