SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Workplace Safety–the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense

October 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
I just attended an Associated Builders and Contractors meeting during which Lueder Construction discussed a fatality on one of its worksite. OSHA fully investigated the incident and did not issue a single citation. This is a testament to the safety plan and training Lueder had in place well before this incident. One defense to an OSHA citation is unpreventable employee misconduct. However, proving this defense requires substantial planning, well before an incident or investigation. Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense OSHA requires that an employer do everything reasonably within its power to ensure that its personnel do not violate safety standards. But if an employer lives up to that billing and an employee nonetheless fails to use proper equipment or otherwise ignores firmly established safety measures, it seems unfair to hold the employer liable. To address this dilemma, both the Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission and courts have recognized the availability of the unforeseeable employee misconduct defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.

February 21, 2022 — Laura Curtis - Bloomberg
Small businesses looking for a factory that can make some stylish orthopedic shoes, chairs or construction materials may have an easier time finding a closer-to-home alternative to waiting for the supply-chain snarl in the Pacific Ocean to work itself out. Zipfox, an online platform that links businesses up with factories in Mexico, launched this week, enabling near-shoring of production and the chance to get goods into the U.S. more quickly than if businesses were sourcing from manufacturing hubs in China. “People are feeling the pain from sourcing from China right now but they aren’t really aware of the manufacturing capability and capacity that Mexico already has,” Zipfox founder Raine Mahdi said Tuesday. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Curtis, Bloomberg

---

Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

February 23, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court applied the efficient proximate cause doctrine to find coverage under a property policy for a building's collapse. Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co., 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1181 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015). The insured submitted a claim to Amco for damage to the flooring of the house and for mold. Amco's adjustor reported that the house seemed to be settling, possibly due to a water leak. A structural engineer then inspected and found multiple potential leaks in the roof, gutters in disrepair, downspouts that deposited water at the base of the walls of the house, and evidence that a faucet had been spraying the wall in one area. Water damage was noticed in these areas. Further, the kitchen was water damaged and had past termite infestation. 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

---

Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

June 22, 2020 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman
Under Illinois law, an insurer’s duty to defend includes the right to control the defense, which allows insurers to protect their financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. However, where a conflict of interest exists, the insured, rather than the insurer, is entitled to assume control of the defense of the underlying action. If this occurs, the insurer satisfies its obligation to defend by reimbursing the insured for the cost of defense provided by independent counsel selected by the insured. What circumstances and situations arise to the level of an actual conflict of interest between the insurer and insured are often grounds for dispute. In Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, 2020 IL App (1st) 182491 (Apr. 7, 2020), the Illinois Appellate Court addressed whether damages awarded by a jury in excess of the policy limits were sufficient to trigger a right to independent counsel for post-trial and appellate proceedings. According to the Illinois Appellate Court, at least under the facts of the Ryerson case, the answer is “no.” In Ryerson, Nancy Hoffman sued Ryerson for injuries sustained in a tractor-trailer accident. Ryerson tendered the suit to its primary insurer, Travelers, and its umbrella insurer, Illinois National. The policy limits were $2 million and $25 million, respectively. A jury found in favor of Hoffman for over $27.6 million in damages, and Ryerson appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

Commonwealth Court Strikes Blow to Philly Window and Door Ordinance

January 05, 2017 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
On December 22, 2016, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued an important opinion that has flown under the radar somewhat. The case Rufo v. Board of Licenses and Inspection Review, invalidates a major portion of Philadelphia’s so called windows and doors ordinance, which requires owners of vacant properties to install glass windows and doors with frames on vacant properties. A copy of the opinion can be found here. (I only learned about the case because of a tweet by a litigator with the pro-freedom group the Institute for Justice.) The Windows and Doors Ordinance The case concerns Section 306.2 of the Property Maintenance Code which requires “the owner of a vacant building that is a blighting influence, as defined in this subcode, [to] secure all spaces designed as windows with windows that have frames and glazing and all entryways with doors.” Property owners found in violation of the ordinance can face stiff fines. Property owners are subject to a daily fine for each door and window in violation of the Ordinance. The fine is $300 per window or door. However, because most vacant properties have multiple windows and doors the fines can add up exponentially. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

California Home Sellers Have Duty to Disclose Construction Defect Lawsuits

October 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
If you’re selling a home in California that has been the subject of a construction defect lawsuit, you probably have to disclose this, according to Steven G. Lee, an attorney at Reid & Hellyer. Mr. Lee notes that California law mandates the disclosure of “any lawsuits by or against the Seller threatening to or affecting the Property, including any lawsuits alleging a defect or deficiency.” He further notes that “for those selling units in a condominium or townhouse development, this includes defects in the common areas.” He notes that failure to disclose will not invalidate the sale, but the seller may be “liable for actual damages suffered by the buyer.” Merely disclosing the former defect may not be enough. Mr. Lee notes that the California Court of Appeals ruled in one case that although buyers had been informed of past water intrusion, knowledge of the construction defect lawsuit may have affected the buyer’s decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

October 02, 2018 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Essex Walnut Owner L.P. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138276 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had occasion to consider the issue of a pollution liability insurer’s obligation to pay for the redesign of a structural support system necessitated by the alleged presence of soil contamination. Aspen’s insured, Essex, owned a parcel of property it was in the process of redeveloping for commercial and residential purposes. The project required excavation activities in order to construct an underground parking lot, and as part of this process, Essex designed a temporary shoring system comprising tied-in retaining walls in order to stabilize the area outside of the excavation. During the excavation work, construction debris was encountered requiring removal. Aspen agreed to pay for a portion of the costs to remove and dispose the debris under the pollution liability policy it issued to Essex. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

---

Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Dayton v. Ackerman, upholding the decision of the lower court, even as they found that the award was incorrectly computed. The Daytons purchased a house that had been designed and built by the Ackermans, who operated a construction business. The court noted that the warranty with the house promised that “for a period of 60 days, the following items will be free of defects in materials or workmanship: doors (including hardware); windows; electric switches; receptacles; and fixtures; caulking around exterior openings; pluming fixtures; and cabinet work.”

Soon, the Daytons began to experience problems with the house. Many were addressed by the Ackermans, but the Daytons continued to have problems with the windows. Neither side could specify a firm date when the Ackermans were contacted by the Daytons about the window problems. The Ackermans maintained that more than two years passed before the Daytons complained about the windows. The lower court found the Daytons more credible in this.

Initially, the Daytons included the window manufacturer in their suit, but after preliminary investigations, the Daytons dropped Martin Doors from their suit. Martin Doors concluded that the windows were improperly installed, many of them “jammed into openings that were too small for them.”

After the Daytons dismissed Martin Doors, the Ackermans sought to file a third party complaint against them. This was denied by the court, as too much time had elapsed. The Ackermans also noted that not all of the window installations were defective, however, the courts found that the Daytons ought not to have mismatched windows.

Unfortunately for the Daytons, the window repair was done incorrectly and the windows were now too small for the openings. The firm that did the repair discounted the windows and Daytons concealed the problem with plantation shutters, totalling $400 less than the original lowest estimate. However, the appeals court noted that it was here that the trial court made their computation error. Correcting this, the appeals court assessed the Ackermans $12,016.20 instead of $13,016.20.

Finally, the Ackerman’s expert was excluded as he had changed his testimony between deposition and trial. The trial reviewed the expert’s testimony and had it been admissible, it would not have changed the ruling.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---