Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Ten ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

August 30, 2021 — Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
ACS is very honored and pleased to announce ten members of our firm were awarded the distinction of top attorneys in Washington. Our blog articles usually cover Construction Legal News, but we feel this is a newsworthy accolade to be shared with friends and clients. To become candidates to receiving the Super Lawyer nomination, lawyers are nominated by a peer or identified by research. After completing this first step in the process, Super Lawyer’s research department analyzes 12 indicators, such as experience, honors/awards, verdicts/settlements, and others. As for the third step, there is a peer evaluation by practice area. Finally, for step four, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories. In other words, solo and small firm lawyers are compared only with other solo and small firm lawyers, and large firm lawyers are compared with other large firm lawyers. The process is very selective and only 5 percent of the total lawyers in Washington are nominated as Super Lawyers. John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, was recognized as the third Top Lawyer out of all Washington lawyers in the State. Named partner Scott R. Sleight and partner Brett M. Hill were both recognized as one of the 100-Best Lawyers in the State. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

Haight’s San Diego Office is Growing with the Addition of New Attorneys

June 21, 2024 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The San Diego office has recently added two attorneys to the team. Amanda McKechnie has joined the Construction Law Practice Group. Amanda has extensive experience representing national developers, owners, general contractors, design professionals and subcontractors in complex construction litigation. Arash Yahyai has joined the Construction Law and General Liability Practice Groups. Arash focuses on defending actions involving complex construction defect, insurance defense, premises liability, product liability, catastrophic personal injury and other general liability related cases. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

February 21, 2013 — W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
In a prior blog post, we summarized the Court of Appeals decision in the case of AC Excavating, Inc. v. Yale, ___ P. 3d. ___, 2010 WL 3432219 (Colo. App. Sept. 2, 2010) which provided an interpretation of the Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute, C.R.S. § 38-22-127 (hereafter “the Trust Fund Statute”). A divided Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and held that capital loans infused into a limited liability company which performed construction could be subject to the provisions of the Trust Fund Statute. The Court of Appeals reasoned that this determination was necessary because the statute was considered applicable to “all funds disbursed on a construction project.” Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the intent of the provider of funds was not relevant, and that the statute applied “irrespective of the [originator of the funds]’s intended use of the funds.” This decision was reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court in an opinion released on February 4, 2013, and it reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. See, Yale v. AC Excavating, Inc., ___ P. 3d. ___, 2013 WL 441895 (Colo. Feb. 4, 2013). The Supreme Court strongly disagreed that loaned or infused capital funds which were obtained by the general contractor entity were “funds disbursed on a construction project,” simply because some of the infused monies were used for operational purposes to pay down specific project obligations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
mann@hlmrlaw.com

The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

September 28, 2017 — Philip M. Brown-Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion! Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com

Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

June 29, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no coverage for the insureds' alleged negligent failure to construct a building. Evanston Ins. Co. v. DCM Contracting, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63977 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2020). Turning Point Church sued DCM Contracting for faulty workmanship on a construction project. Turning Point sent a demand letter to DCM on August 18, 2017 and filed suit in December. Evanston did not receive notice of Turning Point's claims and the lawsuit until May 15, 2018. Evanston filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment. The court first considered the late notice. The policy required notice "as soon as practicable" DCM was also required to provide copies of demands, notices, or legal papers to Evanston. Here, DCM did not give notice to Evanston until nine months after receipt of Turning Point's demand. A phone communication with DCM's agent between August 2017 and May 2018 was insufficient. DCM provided no documents, including the summons and complaint, to the agent. DCM waited five months to forward the underlying lawsuit. This was a breach of the policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Don’t Miss the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

April 01, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The 22nd West Coast Casualty (WCC) Construction Defect Seminar returning to the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California is just six weeks away. The annual event begins on Thursday, May 14th, with breakfast and registration starting at 7:30am. Panel discussions on various construction defect related topics begin at 8:30am and continue through the morning and afternoon, followed by a cocktail reception in the early evening. The following day includes break-out sessions with the event concluding in the afternoon. Attendees can enhance their seminar experience with the WCC Construction Defect Seminar Mobile App. The event schedule, speaker information, product information, sponsor details, and interactive floorplan can all be accessed through the app. Furthermore, registered attendees will have access to session presentations. The discounted, early registration ends April 15th, 2015. Download an Invitation and Register for the Event... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

$24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

June 05, 2017 — Jon A. Turigliatto & Chelsea L. Zwart - CGDRB News & Publications
The Fourth District California Court of Appeal published its decision, Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1129, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895, et. seq.) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier’s negligence or breach of contract. In this case, Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (“the HOA”) sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA’s complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. At trial, the HOA presented evidence that the pipes supplied by MWI contained manufacturing defects, that they leaked, and that the leaks had caused damage to various parts of the condominium development. The jury returned a special verdict against MWI, and the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury’s finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA’s damages. MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict prior to the jury’s verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the entry of judgment, both on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused a SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800. MWI relied on the Fourth District’s prior decision in Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, and its interpretation therein of Civil Code §936, which states, in relevant part, that the statute applies “to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract….” (emphasis added.) However, the trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, “[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any…material supplier…with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply.” Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous

April 22, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Inscribed over the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court are the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” It’s a reminder that judicial decisions should be just. That doesn’t necessarily mean fair. In Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC Centcom Constructors, LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Case No. 17-16510 (January 28, 2019), the 9th Circuit overturned an arbitration decision in favor of a local Afghani subcontractor seeking termination costs after it was terminated for convenience by a U.S.-based general contractor. This, despite the arbitrator’s finding that the subcontract was “clearly drafted to give every advantage to” the general contractor, that the local Afghani subcontractor’s “experience with government contracting [was] not nearly as extensive as that of” the general contractor, and “that the normal business practices and customs of subcontractors in Afghanistan were more ‘primitive’ than those of U.S. subcontractors experienced with U.S. Government work.” Aspic Engineering and Construction Local Afghani subcontractor Aspic Engineering and Construction Company was awarded two subcontracts by ECC Centcom Constructors the general contractor on two projects in Afghanistan overseen by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The first subcontract involved construction of various buildings in the Badghis province of Afghanistan . The second subcontract involved the construction various buildings Sheberghan province of Afghanistan . Both subcontracts included clauses from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which were incorporated by reference, and included flow-down provisions obligating Aspic to ECC in the same manner that ECC was obligated to the U.S. government. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES