Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Lawsuits over Roof Dropped

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
An Iowa roofing contractor has dropped its lawsuit over a contract to re-roof a condominium complex. The condominium association has dropped its counterclaim against the roofer. Hansel Construction alleged that the Harbourage Owners Association failed to fulfill the contract’s provisions, which prevented Hansel Construction from fulfilling its contract. Further, Hansel alleged that it had expenses, losses, and damages, as a result of Harbourage’s actions. In response, Harbourage sued James Hansel. Now, both lawsuits have been dismissed by the parties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin Doctrine

September 13, 2021 — Peter Roth – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America
September 9, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the decision of The Supreme Court of The State of Washington to reverse the lower court ruling in the case of Lake Hills Investments, LLC vs. Rushforth Construction Co. As argued by SFAA, the Supreme Court found the contractor should not be responsible for damage caused by the defective design provided by the owner even where the contractor was responsible for certain defective work. In addition, the contractor is not completely barred from asserting this defense if the defects were caused by a combination of deficient performance by the contractor and deficient design, and proportional liability should be determined. The SFAA, along with the National Electrical Contractors Association Puget Sound Chapter (NECA), Mechanical Contractors Association of Western Washington (MCAWW) and SMACNA-Western Washington (SMACNA), issued an Amici Curiae in support of Petitioner AP Rushforth Construction Co., Inc. d/b/a AP Rushforth, and Adolfson & Peterson, Inc.’s (collectively “AP”) Petition for Discretionary Review. In the brief they argued the Court should grant the Petition because the decision by the lower court is contrary to precedent of limiting a contractor’s liability when the owner’s defective plans and specifications caused the defective work, and upsets settled expectations of allocation of risk and liability between contractors, owners and architects (among others) on construction projects. This allocation of risk and the principle of limiting the contractor’s liability for defective work based on defective plans and specifications is long settled doctrine in Washington State and throughout the country, a doctrine based on the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in U.S. vs. Spearin more than 100 years ago. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. www.surety.org Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Roth, SFAA
Mr. Roth may be contacted at proth@surety.org

Hawaii Federal District Court Again Rejects Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

January 13, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the District of Hawaii continued its longstanding pattern of finding no coverage for claims based upon construction defects. Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haw. Nut & Bolt, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174243 (D. Haw. Dec. 16, 2016). Safeway filed a complaint against Hawaii Nut & Bolt (HNB). The complaint involved issues pertaining to the construction of the roof deck at a Safeway store. HNB was a subcontractor hired to supply a coating system on the roof of the store to make it waterproof. The product was manufactured by VersaFlex. After the store opened, there were water leaks from the roof. This disrupted business operations and caused damage to Safeway's business and reputation. HNB tendered the claims to its CGL carrier, Fireman's Fund Insurance Corporation (FFIC). FFIC defended the underlying lawsuit for six years under a reservation of rights. 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

Construction Site Blamed for Flooding

November 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A neighborhood in Pflugerville, Texas was during some recent heavy rains, and the residents blame the nearby construction of a new elementary school. During the rains, a retention wall around the site collapsed, leading to the water discharging to their neighborhood. One resident noted that he had about $16,000 worth of damage to his home and it has also cost him work. “I fix computers for a living, but I don’t have internet right now, and a lot of my stuff is wet,” said Erik Goeser, one of the Shallow Creek neighborhood residents. The county is looking into the situation but notes that “the construction site in question had recently been inspected and met all Travis County expectations, requirements and codes.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Substituting Materials and Failure to Comply with Contractual Requirements

November 19, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
It is important to remember that if you are going to substitute materials from those specified, you need to make sure there is proper approval in doing so–make sure to comply with the contractual requirements to substitute materials. Otherwise, you could be in a situation where you are contractually required to remove the installed substituted materials and replace with the correct specified materials. This is not the situation you want to find yourself in because this is oftentimes a costly endeavor. This was the situation in Appeal-of-Sauer, Inc., discussed below, on a federal project. The best thing that you can do is comply with the contractual requirements if you want to substitute materials. If you are in the situation where it is too late, i.e., you already installed incorrect materials, you want to demonstrate the substituted materials are functionally equivalent to the specified materials and/or come up with an engineering solution, as required, that could be less costly then ripping out the installed material and replacing with the correct material. Even doing so, however, is not a “get out of jail free card” and does not necessarily mean there is not a strong basis to require you to install the correct specified material. In Appeal of- Sauer, Inc., ASBCA 61847, 2021 WL 4888192 (ASBCA September 29, 2021), a federal project’s engineering requirements required cast iron piping for the above ground sanitary system. However, the prime contractor installed PVC piping instead of cast iron piping. The prime contractor believed it had the appropriate approval through its submittal. The government, through its contracting officer, directed the prime contractor to remove installed PVC piping to replace with cast iron. The government did not believe PVC piping was the functional equivalent of cast iron piping for the above ground sanitary system due to its concern with the noise level of waste materials flowing through the piping. The prime contractor submitted a claim for its removal and replacement costs which was denied by the contracting officer. On appeal with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Board agreed with the contracting officer explaining: “While we agree that a design change could be approved by the designer of record and brought to the attention of the government before being incorporated into the design documents, the [prime contractor’s] task order required that such a design change meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and accepted proposal. The plumbing submittal [the prime contractor] issued here, showing the use of PVC instead of cast iron for the above ground waste piping, did not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” Appeal of-Sauer, Inc., supra. 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

A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

August 03, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Several interesting decisions have recently been made by federal and state courts. FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – ARCO Shifts from State to Federal and No Vigor for VIM On June 18, 2020, the court decided the case of Baker, et al. v. ARCO, holding that the revised federal removal statutes authorize the removal to federal court of a state-filed complaint against several defendants by the former residents of an Indiana housing complex who contended that the defendants were responsible for the industrial pollution attributed to the operations of a now-closed industrial plant. The housing complex was constructed at the site of the former U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery. During the Second World War, the plant produced products for the use of the government war effort, thus triggering the applicability of the federal removal statutes. On June 25, 2020, the court decided the case of Greene, et al. v. Westfield Insurance Company. As the court notes, this is a matter that “began as a case about environmental pollution and evolved into a joint garnishment action.” An Indiana wood recycling facility, VIM Recycling, was the subject of many complaints by nearby residents that its operations and waste disposal activities exposed then to dust and odors in violation of federal law and triggered state tort law claims. VIM was sued in state court, but neglected to notify its insurer, as required by its insurance policy with Westfield Insurance. One thing led to another, and a default judgment in the amount of $ 50 million was entered against VIM. Since VIM at that point had no assets, the plaintiffs and later VIM sought recovery from Westfield. When this dispute landed in federal court, the court, after reviewing the policy, concluded that there was a provision excluding coverage when the insured knew it had these liabilities when it purchased the insurance. As a result, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and this decision has been affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Project-Specific Policies and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extensions

May 31, 2021 — Jeremiah M. Welch - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
1. Understanding the “Products-Completed Operations Hazard” ISO commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies use the term “products-completed operations hazard” (“PCOH”) to define a category of risk which is treated specially by certain exclusions within the policy and often subject to separate limits of insurance. In construction, we think about PCOH as being about coverage for completed work. Bodily injury and property damage arising out of completed work is a significant construction risk. Most construction contracts include warranty and indemnity obligations for completed work. All states allow lawsuits to be brought alleging bodily injury or property damage because of completed work based on common law. Contract and common law claims are subject to statutes of limitation – laws which define the time in which suits must be brought. Most states provide exceptions to their statutes of limitation for common law claims – the most common example is an extension to file a lawsuit based on a latent defect until the defect is discovered. Most states also have “statutes of repose” – laws that set a date after which suit may no longer be brought, no matter what the circumstances are. A construction contractor, therefore, has potential liability until the statute of repose period has expired. Thus, a contractor looks to ensure that it has coverage for the PCOH for its full statute of repose liability period. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Welch may be contacted at JWelch@sdvlaw.com

Fourth Circuit Clarifies What Qualifies As “Labor” Under The Miller Act

May 08, 2023 — Jeffrey Hummel - The Construction Seyt
Under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131 et seq., contractors hired to work on federal construction projects are required to furnish payment bonds in order to ensure payment to certain persons that provide labor for the project. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a published decision clarifying the type of work that qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. Elliot Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company (issued April 26, 2023). In that case, the U.S. Department of Defense hired Forney Enterprises (Forney) as the prime contractor on a renovation project at the Pentagon. Forney retained Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) to provide the required Miller Act payment bond. Forney then entered into a subcontract with Elliott Dickson (Dickson), a professional engineer, to work as a project manager on the contract. Dickson primarily supervised labor on the site, but also performed other tasks, including logistical and clerical duties, taking various field measurements, cleaning the worksite, moving tools and materials, and sometimes even watering the concrete himself. Dickson’s work required him to be onsite on a daily basis. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey Hummel, Seyfarth
Mr. Hummel may be contacted at jhummel@seyfarth.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES