Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Asbestos Client Alert: Court’s Exclusive Gatekeeper Role May not be Ignored or Shifted to a Jury

February 07, 2014 — Lee Marshall and Chandra L. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Estate of Henry Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., - F.3d -, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 774, 2014 WL 129884 (9th Cir., Jan. 15, 2014) en banc, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a $10.2 million judgment in the Plaintiffs’ favor in a case where Plaintiff alleged that occupational exposure to asbestos from dryer felts caused his mesothelioma. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by neglecting its duty as a “gatekeeper” under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, by improperly admitting expert testimony at trial without first determining its reliability. The en banc court held that admitting the testimony on the debated theory that “each asbestos fiber causes mesothelioma” was prejudicial error and the court remanded the case for a new trial. The court also held that a reviewing court has the authority to make Daubert findings based on the record established by the district court, but in the instant case, the record was “too sparse” to determine whether the expert testimony was relevant and reliable or not. This ruling is a victory for the defense in that it reaffirms the federal court’s exclusive gatekeeper role and holds that the role may not be ignored or shifted to a jury. Unfortunately, the court did not go so far as to evaluate the inherent reliability of expert opinions based on the theory that “each asbestos exposure causes mesothelioma.” As such, it did not provide guidance as to what specific foundational requirements are required to admit, or exclude, these types of opinions under a Daubert analysis. In Barabin, Plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos while working at a paper mill with dryer felts manufactured and supplied by Defendants. The issue was whether the dryer felts substantially contributed to Barabin’s development of mesothelioma, a determination that required expert testimony. Reprinted Courtesy of Lee Marshall, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Chandra L. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Lee may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com and Ms. Moore may be contacted at cmoore@hbblaw.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

March 29, 2017 — William S. Bennett – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Federal District Court for the District of Oregon recently decided that Carbon Monoxide constitutes a pollutant within the meaning of a pollution exclusion in a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy. In Colony Ins. V. Victory Constr. LLC, No. 3: 16-cv-00457-HZ (Mar. 14, 2017), the District Court considered whether there was coverage for a pool company that allegedly failed to warn of the “risks of carbon monoxide poisoning associated with operating the heater in an insufficiently ventilated area,” leading to carbon monoxide sickness. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

April 01, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Builder magazine, after conquering the Canadian market, Mattamy Homes seeks to build more homes in the U.S. Mattamy’s Jim Leiferman had been asked to promote the company in the Orlando-area, however, “he went above and beyond that mission, growing the company’s footprint well beyond the metro area.” Brian Johnson, COO of Mattamy, told Builder, “[Jim Leiferman] was promotable, like any division president, but Jim proved to really, in a very short period of time, have a very strong in understanding of the business. He’s thoughtful and goes beyond our expectations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence

September 23, 2019 — Ashley L. Cooper - SDV Insights
A recent Illinois Appellate Court’s decision in, Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 West Huron Condominium Owners Association, 2019 IL App (1st) 180743 (2019), strengthens Illinois’ precedent favoring construction defects as an occurrence under a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance policy. Acuity also broadens an insurance carrier’s obligation to defend its insured against construction defect allegations. In Acuity, the court determined whether claims for construction defect filed against a subcontractor, triggered a duty to defend under a CGL policy. To make its determination, the court focused on the subcontractor’s scope of work. The court notes that a subcontractor normally contracts for a discrete scope of work on a project. Unlike a general contractor, who has control over or contractual obligations for all aspects of the project, a subcontractor does not have those board responsibilities. The court explained that “[f]rom the eyes of the subcontractor, the ‘project’ is limited to the scope of its own work, and the precise nature of any damage that might occur to something outside of that scope is as unknown or unforeseeable as damage to something entirely outside of the construction project.” Accordingly, the court in Acuity held that when a complaint alleges that a subcontractor’s negligence caused damage to a part of the construction project outside of the subcontractor’s scope of work, the allegations are enough to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend the subcontractor under a CGL policy. The court’s decision in Acuity relied on a similar Illinois Appellate Court decision, Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 956 N.E.2d 524 (Ill. App. 2011). In Larsen, the court reached a similar conclusion where a third-party complaint by a general contractor against a subcontractor alleged that the subcontractor’s improper window caulking caused water intrusion and property damage to other parts of the building. The court in Larsen held that because the complaint alleged not only construction defects, but also damage to other property outside the subcontractor’s scope of work, the insurer had a duty to defend the subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com

The Dangers of an Unlicensed Contractor from Every Angle

January 11, 2021 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The State of California requires that contractors in the building trades be licensed. Individuals and business entities obtain their contractors licenses by demonstrating to the California Contractors State License Board that they have the requisite knowledge, skill, and experience to be licensed. The CSLB issues licenses to those meeting requirements. As a construction attorney of longstanding tenure, I have witnessed the impact of unlicensed building contractors from every point of view. If you are considering hiring an unlicensed contractor, acting as an unlicensed contractor or even working for an unlicensed contractor as an employee, please consider the following perils: To the Owner Considering Hiring an Unlicensed Contractor: On the positive side for owners considering hiring an unlicensed contractor, the general rule in California is that an owner can escape the obligation to pay an unlicensed contractor for work performed and materials supplied because unlicensed contractors are prohibited from bringing legal actions against owners for payment. The law even goes so far as to allow the Owner to bring a legal action against the unlicensed Contractor for reimbursement of anything the owner paid to the unlicensed contractor. This is done through a “disgorgement” action (see, Business and Professions Code 7031. See also, the following article: Disgorgement Article). Despite this, there are a great many negative potential consequences to be considered by any owner who might consider hiring an unlicensed contractor. Among them are the following:

If you are considering not paying your unlicensed contractor because Business and Professions Code 7031 allows it, please consider that unlicensed contractors, who have clearly demonstrated a disinclination to follow legal obligations in the first place, may resort to “less than socially acceptable” means of exacting retribution against those who do not pay them or who demand the return of money paid through a disgorgement action I am sorry to say this. Let us leave it at that.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

June 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

Served with a lawsuit that you turned over to your insurer? Insurer refusing to defend you? Well, find some hope in this news. Washington’s IFCA has the claws to ensure that insurers perform their duties.

Contractors heavily rely on the defense provisions of their Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies. In construction, a legal dispute can easily rear its head when you least expect it. Luckily, Washington registered contractors are required to maintain CGL insurance. That insurance often provides contractors with adequate legal defense in the event that they are sued.

But, what if your insurer turns down the defense request? They might be staring at massive damages. A current Reiser Legal client, Australia Unlimited, Inc., recently won a large verdict against Hartford Insurance, after the insurer unreasonably denied their claim. The firm who represented Australia Unlimited Inc. in that case, Hackett Beecher and Hart, were successful in procuring a $5.43 Million verdict

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’

January 24, 2022 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Marianne Bradley - White and Williams LLP
On January 11, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 795 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022), finding that an insurer had a duty to defend its insured in a construction defect case where the underlying complaint alleged damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured. Siplast, Inc. (Siplast) had contracted with the Archdiocese of New York (the Archdiocese) to install a roof membrane system at a high school in the Bronx, New York. Id. at *1. As part of the contract, Siplast guaranteed that the roof membrane system would remain in a watertight condition for at least twenty years. Id. at *2. If it did not, Siplast would repair the roof membrane system at its own expense. Id. Several years after the installation, the Archdiocese observed water damage in the ceiling tiles at the high school. Id. The Archdiocese contacted Siplast, who attempted to repair the damage and prevent further leaks; however, leaks and resultant damage continued to occur. Id. Siplast subsequently refused to make any more improvements to the roof. Id. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Delays and Suspension of the Work Under Fixed Price Government Contract

July 22, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here is an interesting fact pattern and case decided by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals dealing with (1) force majeure type events and epidemics (Covid-19); (2) suspension of the work; and (3) delays. These are three topics important to all contractors including federal contractors. In Lusk Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v General Services Administration, 2024 WL 1953697, CBCA 7759 (CBCA 2024), a contractor entered into a fixed price contract with the government to repair, replace, and modernize site and building systems at a federal building. The contractor commenced work right before Covid-19. When Covid-19 hit, the government issued the contractor a two-week suspension of work notice on March 27, 2020. The suspension of work allowed off-site administrative work to continue but suspended on-site physical work. The government extended the suspension of work three more times. The contractor could resume work on the exterior on June 1, 2020, but was not permitted to resume work on the interior until July 20, 2020. On the same date that the contractor was able to commence interior work, it submitted a modification for delay caused by the suspension – 64 days for the time period the entire site shutdown, and 51 days for the interior work shutdown. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES