Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

July 30, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:

The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.

InDyne was subsequently awarded a contract with the Air Force and shortly thereafter sent a subcontract to Beacon and requested Beacon’s “best and final” pricing. Beacon protested by letter stating that it was only required to act consistently with its original bid pricing. Beacon then returned the subcontract with the original bid pricing and accepting all but a termination for convenience provision. Shortly thereafter, InDyne informed Beacon that InDyne had awarded the subcontract to one of Beacon’s competitors. Beacon of course sued and argued that the teaming agreement required that InDyne award the subcontract to Beacon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Legislative Update: Bid Protest Law Changes to Benefit Contractors

November 24, 2019 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
A new statute became effective July 28, 2019 that benefits contractors who have bid protests in Washington. A bid protest is the only way for disappointed bidders to challenge irregularities in the public bidding process on public works projects. Bid protests ensure the integrity of the public bidding system and are the contractor’s only remedy if its bid is improperly rejected or the winning bidder has errors in its bid that render it nonresponsive. Under the old law, a contractor was required to submit their bid protest within 2 days after the bid opening. The problem was that a contractor often does not know the basis to protest an award without seeing the other bids to determine whether the winning bid was responsive. Many owners provide copies of the bids if requested at the bid opening, but some contractors found that owners were refusing to provide copies of the other bids until after the 2-day protest period expired. The new law, which passed this last Legislative session[1], states that a contractor has two days after the bid opening to either submit a written protest or request copies of the competing bids. If the contractor requests copies of the competing bids from the owner, the contractor then has until 2 days after the competing bids are provided by the owner before the contractor is required to submit its bid protest. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

Reinsurer Must Reimburse Health Care Organization for Settlement Costs

June 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment issued to reinsurer Continental Casualty Company (CNA) and determined it must reimburse the insured for settlement costs under the E & O policy. Wellpoint, Inc., et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al., 2015 Ind. LEXIS 316 (Ind. April 22, 2015). Anthem, Inc. was a large managed health care organization. Anthem was its own primary and excess insurer for E&O liability. It had numerous excess reinsurers. Beginning in 1998, anthem was confronted by various lawsuits alleging it and other managed care organizations failed to pay claims in a full and timely manner, thereby breaching state and federal statutes. The various lawsuits alleged substantially the same wrongful conduct, namely that after promising to pay doctors in a timely manner for their services, Anthem sought to improperly deny, delay and diminish payments due. The cases were consolidated into a federal multi-district litigation proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. Claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of state prompt pay statutes were dismissed or dropped. Anthem then settled the underlying litigation in July 2005 without admitting and instead denying any wrongdoing or liability. The settlement called for both cash payments and implementation of specific business practices consistent with requested injunctive relief. 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

Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance

December 27, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
It is a good idea to know what your insurance covers and does not cover. This way, if your course of business has you performing a certain (risky) operation, you know whether that operation is covered or excluded under your policy. If you are not sure, discuss with your insurance broker — this is important. There is little value performing an operation that is NOT covered by your insurance policy, as you are now performing a risk that is not covered by insurance. If you know it is not covered by insurance you may elect to change your operations or see if there is insurance to cover the risk. Below is a case study of this occurrence dealing with a commercial automobile liability policy where an insured’s operations using a crane mounted to a super duty truck was not covered under their automobile liability policy. In People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D262a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), homeowners hired a company to install a shed. The company hired another company to deliver and install the shed using a crane; the company used a crane mounted to a Ford F-750 super duty truck. This company improperly operated the crane resulting in the shed falling and damaging the homeowner’s roof. The homeowners submitted a claim to their property insurer and their property insurer subrogated to their rights and sued. The company operating the crane’s commercial automobile liability insurer denied coverage, and thus, denied the duty to defend. As a result, a Coblentz-type agreement was entered into where the company operating the crane consented to a judgment in favor of the property insurer (subrogee) and assigned its rights under its commercial automobile liability policy to the property insurer. The property insurer then sued the automobile liability carrier for coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the automobile liability insurer finding there was no coverage and this was affirmed on appeal. Why? 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

Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Oregon Supreme Court has concluded that if it is possible that damage could have occurred prior to the completion of the project, then the policies in effect at that time are triggered. John Green of Farella Braun + Martel LLP writes that “we have long argued that, since the duty to defend exists if there is any ‘potential’ of covered liability, there is a potential that damage happened before that project was completed, or at any time after completion, triggering all policies in that time frame.” The Oregon court concluded that if property damage could have happened during construction, the insuerer had a duty to defend and “the insured had no burden to establish any additional facts to support that potential.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC

February 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a press release on PR Newswire, Columbus, Ohio law firm McDonalds Hopkins LLC is merging with firm Welin, O’Shaughnessy + Scheaf. McDonalds Hopkins LLC is “a business advisory and advocacy law firm with a more than 80-year history.” They are looking to expand their “Columbus presence” by the merger with “the boutique firm” that specializes in construction law, complex business litigation and oil and gas litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

June 10, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Linda Halderman (R-Fresno) has introduced a bill which would require lawyers soliciting clients for construction defect cases to provide their prospective clients with a statement including that sellers may be required to disclose that they were engaged in a construction lawsuit. Further, the bill would require lawyers to disclose that they cannot guarantee financial recovery.

Halderman was quoted by The Business Journal as saying, “Lawsuit abuse has been very damaging, especially to homeowners in the Valley.” Halderman hopes that her bill will discourage class action lawsuits against builders and that this will protect jobs in the construction industry.

Read the full story…

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

Cross-Office Team Secures Defense Verdict in Favor of Client in Asbestos Case

November 18, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
St. Louis/Kansas City, Mo. (October 23, 2024) - St. Louis Partners Tracy J. Cowan and Karen M. Volkman, along with Kansas City Partner Vincent Gunter, secured a defense verdict in a Jackson County, Missouri matter on behalf of a Lewis Brisbois client, which was the successor-in-interest to a life, health and reinsurance firm, against claims brought by an individual who worked in the corporate headquarters and was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Background The plaintiff was 62 years old when she was diagnosed with mesothelioma. She worked as a clerk for several years in the 1970s in a 19-story office building that opened in 1963. The plaintiff claimed construction work being performed in the areas where she worked exposed her to asbestos from above the suspended ceiling. The beams and girders in the building were fireproofed with sprayed-on insulation. Although the plaintiff did not perform any maintenance work, she relied on evidence from several operating engineers who worked above the ceiling near the fireproofing to establish the presence of asbestos in the building. The plaintiff submitted claims for negligence and unsafe workplace. At the beginning of trial, the LBBS client had a pending motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was governed by the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law. The Court denied a motion to continue the trial and submitted the workers’ compensation issue as an affirmative defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES