Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2023 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

September 19, 2022 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that five Partners have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. In addition, four attorneys have been included in the 2023 Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch list. These recognitions include attorneys from the firm’s Hawthorne, NY; Chicago, IL; Palm Beach Gardens, FL; and St. Petersburg, FL offices. 2023 Best Lawyers® Hawthorne, NY

Lisa L. Shrewsberry – Commercial Litigation

Chicago, IL

Brian C. Bassett – Insurance Law

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

Rina Clemens – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

St. Petersburg, FL

Scot E. Samis – Appellate Practice
Lauren S. Curtis – Insurance Law

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

Goldberg Segalla Welcomes William L. Nimick

February 07, 2022 — Goldberg Segalla LLP
(RALEIGH, N.C.)—Goldberg Segalla added William L. Nimick to the firm's Construction Litigation and Counsel group in Raleigh. Nimick was previously with The Law Offices of Stephen R. Paul in Raleigh. Nimick is an experienced litigator who focuses his practice on counseling and defending corporate entities, insurers, contractors, and subcontractors in a range of liability claims, including those alleging construction defect, personal injury, property damage, premises liability, and more. Nimick draws on a background in civil litigation, personal injury and wrongful death, workers' compensation, and subrogation. He has handled subrogation claims across North Carolina, including construction defects, motor vehicle accidents, product liability lawsuits, and large fire losses. Nimick earned his bachelor's degree at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and his juris doctor at the Campbell University Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law. About Goldberg Segalla Goldberg Segalla is a national civil litigation firm with more than 20 offices in 10 states spanning major metro markets across the U.S., providing strategic coverage wherever our clients do business. As a firm of experienced litigators and trial attorneys, Goldberg Segalla's capabilities span business and commercial disputes, employment and labor, insurance coverage, product liability, and more. Today, our more than 400 attorneys are trusted counselors to public and private clients in key sectors and industries including construction and energy, transportation, manufacturing, retail and hospitality, and insurance. To learn more, visit goldbergsegalla.com or follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

February 16, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
In prior articles, I reinforced the importance of general contractors including “primary and noncontributory” language in subcontracts and requiring the subcontractor to provide an analogous “primary and noncontributory” endorsement. As a general contractor this is important, particularly since you are going to require the subcontractor to (i) indemnify you for claims relating to personal injury, property damage, or death, and (ii) identify you as an additional insured under its commercial general liability (CGL) policy for claims arising out of the subcontractor’s scope of work. The “primary and noncontributory” language in your subcontracts allows you to maximize the value of your additional insured status. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

January 26, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co. (No. F069953, filed 12/11/15) a California appeals court held that policy wording that the collapse coverage for damage “caused only by” certain specified perils did not mean “solely” by those specified perils, but that coverage may nonetheless apply even if excluded causes contributed to the loss, under the Insurance Code section 530 and the efficient proximate cause rule. In Vardanyan, the insured made a claim for water damage from unknown origin to a rental house. An engineer concluded that the various sources of moisture—roof leaks, gutters and downspouts that did not channel the water away from the house, a faucet spraying water on the exterior of the house, leaking toilet and bathtub, and humidity—contributed to the damage to the house, along with poor construction, termite damage and decay. The insurer denied coverage citing multiple policy exclusions, including damage caused by seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system; deterioration; mold, wet or dry rot; settling of foundations, walls or floors; earth movement; water damage; neglect; weather conditions; acts or decisions of any person; and faulty or defective design, workmanship, repair, construction, or maintenance. The insured retained a public adjuster who disagreed, in particular citing the policy’s “Other Coverage 9” coverage for collapse of a building or part of a building “caused only by one or more” of a list of perils, including hidden decay, hidden insect damage, and weight of contents, equipment, or people. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

August 04, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. 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

Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Comparing it to a “complex construction defect action,” the California Court of Appeals for Orange County has rejected the claims of a group of mobile home owners that they should be certified as a class in their lawsuit against Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. The Appeals court sustained the judgment of the lower court. The court issued a decision in the case of Criswell v. MMR Family LLC on January 17, 2012.

The claims made by the group were that the owners and operators of the mobile home park had known of an “on-going and potentially worsening shallow groundwater condition on the property” and had “exacerbated the problem by changing ‘the configuration and drainage related to the hillside that abuts’ the park.” The homeowners claimed that the class should consist of “any past or current homeowner during the same time frame” who had experienced “the accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” “property damage to his/her mobilehome and/or other property resulting from drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” emotional distress related to drainage problems or mold, and finally health problems “resulting from exposure to drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins, in or around one’s home, lot, or common areas of the park.”

The lower court concluded that while the limits of the class were identifiable, they failed to constitute a class in other ways. First, the people affected were small enough in number that they could be brought together. They “are not so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the Court.”

The court noted that while many of the homeowners would have issues in common, they did not find “a well-defined community of interest among the class members.” The Appeals Court wrote that “the individual issues affecting each mobile home and homeowner will predominate over the common issue of the presence of standing or pooling water in and around the park.” The court noted that each home would be affected differently by water and “the ‘accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins.’”

While the court conceded that there would be common issues, such as the “defendants’ alleged concealment of excess moisture conditions and their allegedly negligent roadwork and landscaping,” they noted that “these common issues would be swamped by the swarm of individual determinations of property damage, emotional distress, and personal injury.” The Appeals Court cited an earlier case that ruled against certification “if a class action ‘will splinter into individual trials.’” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court that they could not proceed as a class.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the case Phillips v. Parmelee, the Wisconsin Supreme court ruled “that an asbestos exclusion in a liability policy barred a duty to defend and indemnify a building seller for claims that the seller failed to disclose that the building contained asbestos,” according to an article in Mondaq by Ruth S. Kochenderfer and Deanna P. Cook, both from Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The policyholder received a building report stating that the “heating ducts likely contained asbestos,” however, the buyers alleged that the policyholder never provided them the report. After the buyers purchased the property, contractors “cut through the heating ducts, unknowingly dispersing asbestos throughout the building.” According to Kochenderfer and Cook’s article, “The insurer intervened in the buyers' suit and sought summary judgment against the policyholder and buyers, arguing that an asbestos exclusion precluded coverage for the buyers' suit against the policyholder.” The buyers took the case to the Wisconsin Supreme court and “attacked the asbestos exclusion,” but the court rejected every argument. Kochenderfer and Cook stated that the “decision is significant because three courts, including Wisconsin's highest court, squarely rejected attempts to narrow a broad, clearly-worded asbestos exclusion. Further, it confirms that such an asbestos exclusion will apply to all causes of action, including an alleged failure to disclose the presence of asbestos.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Mitsui Fudosan Said to Consider Rebuilding Tilted Apartments

October 28, 2015 — Katsuyo Kuwako – Bloomberg
Mitsui Fudosan Co., Japan’s biggest developer, is considering rebuilding an apartment complex in Yokohama after one of the four buildings started to tilt, according to a person familiar with the situation. Kiyotaka Fujibayashi, president and chief executive officer of Mitsui Fudosan Residential Co., on Thursday explained the plans to residents, according to the person, who asked not to be named because the information is private. Another option the company is studying is buying back the apartments from the residents at a price higher than what they had paid, the person said. The project was sold in 2006. Mitsui Fudosan is the latest developer to come under scrutiny for defects at residential projects in the Tokyo area. Mitsubishi Estate Co., Japan’s biggest developer by market value, said last year it would rebuild a residential complex in the upscale Aoyama neighborhood after finding faults. Also last year, Sekisui House Ltd. said it would reconstruct a residential complex that was being built by Taisei Corp. after finding some columns were missing reinforcing metals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katsuyo Kuwako, Bloomberg

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES