Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails

February 03, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's efforts to exclude two of the insured's experts in a collapse case were unsuccessful. Hudon Specialty Ins. Co. v. Talex Enterprises, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150148 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 4, 2019). The insureds' building collapsed. The remaining portions of the building required immediate stabilization. The insureds hired Mr. Laird, an engineer, to prevent further property destruction. The insured designated Mr. Laird as a non-retained expert for trial. Mr. Laird's report claimed that the collapse was caused because the building had been re-roofed many times without removal of the degraded underlying roofing materials, thereby adding additional weight to the roof structure. The insureds also designated Steve Cox as a non-retained expert. Mr. Cox was an architect who owned property neighboring the building that collapsed. He opined that the building collapsed because of the condition of very old mortar and not because of water standing on the building roof or because of roof repairs. Hudson sought to strike these two experts because their opinions were inconsistent with the admitted facts. A document produced by the insureds stated that a large amount of rainwater had collected on the roof and the weight of the rainfall was the proximate cause of the collapse. Hudson claimed that this statement qualified as a judicial admission, removing the question of causation from contention. The court disagreed that the statement was a judicial admission because it did not form any part of the pleadings. The statement may have been an evidentiary admission that could be controverted or explained by the parties. 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

Resolve to Say “No” This Year

January 26, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We hear all of the time how to “get to ‘yes'” and how doing so can lead to more business and of course more business leads to more profits. Purely logical, right? Without construction owners with work for general contractors to perform and general contractors hiring subcontractors to perform that work, construction grinds to a halt and clients and friends of mine in the construction industry don’t make money. For this to happen, “yes” has to happen more often than not. So, why the title of this post? Chalk it up to spending much if not all of my time as a construction attorney either anticipating or dealing with the Murphy’s Law ruled nature of the construction world or to the “Monday morning quarterback” nature of my profession, but I see numerous instances where not taking the job or signing the bad contract would have led to a better outcome than performing the work. What do I mean by this? I mean that as a construction company (particularly one that is lower down the “payment chain” and therefore less in control of the flow of money), you need to carefully evaluate not only the contract presented, but whether you get a good feeling about the party with whom you are contracting. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

July 06, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
AXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies. AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

June 27, 2022 — Gerard J. Onorata - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
During a construction project, it is not uncommon for disputes to arise between a general contractor and a subcontractor. Frequently, these disputes involve claims for extra work and delay damages that can be attributed to the owner of the project due to deficient design or unforeseen conditions. When these occasions arise, the parties can often resolve these claims without the need for litigation or arbitration by entering into a “liquidating agreement.” What is a Liquidating Agreement? Because there is no direct contractual relationship between a subcontractor and an owner, there does not exist a legal basis for a subcontractor to assert a breach of contract claim against a project owner. In legal parlance, this is known as “lack of contractual privity.” A liquidating agreement bridges this contractual gap and allows a subcontractor to pass its claim against the owner through the general contractor. Essentially, with a liquidating agreement, the general contractor acts as a conduit for passing through the subcontractor’s claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

60-Mile-Long Drone Inspection Flight Points to the Future

January 15, 2019 — Tom Sawyer - Engineering News-Record
Black & Veatch announced in December the successful conclusion of a 60-mile-log, non-stop, proof-of-concept drone-based inspection flight conducted by a remote pilot in a command center miles away in rural Illinois. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Sawyer, ENR
Mr. Sawyer may be contacted at sawyert@enr.com

Anchorage Building Codes Credited for Limited Damage After Quakes

January 08, 2019 — Christine Kilpatrick - Engineering News-Record
The magnitudes 7.0 and 5.7 earthquakes that struck Anchorage, Alaska, on Nov. 30 shook buildings and shattered highways, but caused limited structural damage and no reported loss of life, mostly due to the depth and location of the quake’s epicenter, as well as the city and state’s stringent building requirements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christine Kilpatrick - ENR
Ms. Kilpatrick may be contacted at kilpatrickc@enr.com

Does the UCC Apply to the Contract for the Sale of Goods and Services

July 03, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
What governs the transaction for the hybrid contract that includes both goods and services–the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or the common law? A question that is asked in numerous disputes. A good example is the recent case out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Wadley Crushed Stone Company, LLC v. Positive Step, Inc., 2022 WL 1639011 (11th Cir. 2022), dealing with Alabama law. In this case, the plaintiff (buyer) wanted to build a granite plant in Alabama that would process 500 tons of granite per hour. The plaintiff reached out to a defendant company to start the process of building a granite plant. The defendant company engaged vendors and professionals in the due diligence process to determine the equipment the plaintiff would need. After this due diligence, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract that included equipment and services. Thereafter, the parties modified the contract to reduce the amount for the erection, installation, and electrical work (about $1.5 Million) as plaintiff planned to independently hire the contractor to perform that work. The modified contract was worth $4,059,224.43 of which there were 25 lines items for equipment totaling $3,887,274.43 with the balance (less than 5% of the contract amount) for engineering (done by a third party), installation, setup, and calibration of scales. 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

Mississippi Sues Over Public Health Lab Defects

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The state of Mississippi “is suing architects and designers of a new Public Health Lab, saying the $28 million lab wasn't up to containing deadly diseases, biohazards and chemicals,” reported The Clarion-Ledger. Dale Partners Architects, Earl Walls Associates, Eldridge and Associates, and Environmental Management Plus have been named as defendants. "The estimated damages are $3 million," attorney Dorsey Carson told The Clarion-Ledger. "This building is where they test tuberculosis, or where they would test anthrax or any other (biohazards). You don't have a choice – it has to meet rigorous standards." Charlie Alexander, a partner with Dale Partners, stated that “any allegations of design defects by his company and its team ‘are unfounded,’” reported The Clarion-Ledger. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES