SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Washington State Safety Officials Cite Contractor After Worker's Fatal Fall

October 09, 2023 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
Inspectors with the Washington State Dept. of Labor & Industries found that flipper deck platforms were not used in line with the manufacturer’s specifications on a jobsite where a worker was killed in a fall earlier this year. Officials cited a contractor, SAK Builders Inc., for $16,800 in penalties over three alleged serious violations. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

NJ Condo Construction Defect Case Dismissed over Statute of Limitations

June 11, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to an article by Matthew D. Stockwell of the firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP published in Lexology, “a trial court in Bergen County, New Jersey dismissed a condominium association's construction defect claims against several construction entities for failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations.” Stockwell stated that the “aftermath will be interesting to follow, because the trial court stripped away some of the protection that New Jersey's discovery rule affords to property owners who become aware of latent defects well after a project is substantially completed.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

August 11, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Alaska Supreme Court found that in the case of Khalsa v. Chose, Ms. Khalsa? failure to cooperate with the courts has obligated them to dismiss her claims against Mr. Chose. Ms. Khalsa bought a home kit from Mandala Custom Homes of Nelson, British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Chose, one of the owners of Mandala was paid by Ms. Khalsa to supervise assembly in Fairbanks. After construction, the roof developed leaks. Ms. Khalsa stated that when climbing a ladder to inspect a skylight leak, she fell and injured herself.



During the subsequent suit, Khalsa proved uncooperative. She skipped a pretrial conference. She attended a hearing that set discovery deadlines but then did not comply with discovery, including her failure to provide medical records documenting her injuries. She eventually said that she would only be able to travel from Arizona to Alaska if the defendants paid for her and her caretaker?s expenses.



When finally deposed, Khalsa terminated the deposition after five minutes, alleging the deposition was “intentionally designed to cause [her] to endure further emotional distress, due to the psychological trauma . . . that was caused or contributed to by the defendants.”



Eventually, the lower court sanctioned her twice. In July, 2008, the court concluded that her failure to provide medical records required dismissal of her injury lawsuit. In October of that year, the court dismissed all remaining claims due to her “pattern of excuses and long delays in providing information for discovery culminating in her refusal to participate in her deposition by the defendants.” Further, Khalsa has argued that the trial court displayed “prejudice and bias toward the pro se plaintiff.”



The Alaska Supreme Court rejected all of Ms. Khalsa?s claims, dismissing her case. They did, however, note that she has thirty days to file an appeal.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

October 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no coverage obligations for the insured's defective product. Titanium Indus., Inc. v. Federal. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4428324 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 10, 2014). The insured, Titanium Industries, supplied titanium bar materials to Biomet Manufacturing Corporation. Biomet manufactured orthopedic implants and devises. The titanium was used to manufacture screws to incorporate into Biomet's products. Biomet notified the insured of a potential defect in some of the titanium material, described as "alloy segregation," i.e., the failure of alloys in a metal to completely melt, causing the alloy to separate and undermine the strength of the finished product. The insured and Biomet negotiated a settlement, which included lost profits and the cost of returning the titanium. 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

---

“A No-Lose Proposition?”

October 07, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act payment bond surety and its principal general contractor both sued in federal court in New Orleans by a project subcontractor sought to compel arbitration the claims against both contractor and surety based on an indisputably enforceable arbitration clause in the subcontract. This was urged to avoid separate actions against the contractor (arbitration) and its surety (litigation), even though the surety was not a party to the subcontract and, therefore, not a party to the arbitration clause. In the face of the lack of an express agreement to arbitrate, the contractor and contractor argued that “no federal statute or policy prohibits all of Plaintiff’s claims from proceeding to arbitration….” Additionally, those parties urged that the surety should be allowed to affirmatively compel arbitration because the surety “would otherwise have the ability to assert the right to compel arbitration as a defense….” The New Orleans federal district court was unpersuaded:

“[D]istrict courts within this circuit have recognized that ‘Miller Act claims by a subcontractor for unpaid labor and materials are separate and distinct from those for general breach of contract… [and] arbitration and Miller Act suits, are not, per se, inconsistent with one another.’…[A]bsent express contractual intent to subject Miller Act claims to arbitration, the court [will] not force the parties to arbitrate claims against nonparties to the contract at issue…. [C]laims against a surety, which was a non-signatory to the contract, would not be subject to arbitration without any contractual basis to do so.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

UPDATE: ACS Obtains Additional $13.6 Million for General Contractor Client After $19.2 Million Jury Trial Victory

June 27, 2022 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In March 2022, ACS obtained a $19.2 million jury verdict in favor of its general contractor client after a lengthy trial against the project owner. Since that time, ACS has successfully obtained awards through post-trial motion practice for an additional $13.6 million in favor of the general contractor. These awards increased to total judgment to more than $32 million. When moving to enter judgment on the jury verdict, ACS successfully argued for and obtained more than $5 million in prejudgment interest on the jury verdict to compensate the general contractor for having to go years without payment for work performed. ACS also successfully obtained a decree of foreclosure on its construction lien and incorporated language in the judgment requiring the owner to pay an additional $1.9 million in Washington State sales tax on the jury award. Finally, under the authority of the Washington construction lien statute (RCW 60.04.181), ACS sought to recover the attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the general contractor client during the course of litigation. ACS succeeded in obtaining an award for more than $6.6 million for various expenses and costs including ACS’s attorney fees, all the costs of hiring expert witnesses, costs and expenses related to subcontractors’ presentation of pass-through claims against the owner, and other litigation costs and expenses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at wendy.wheatmccoy@acslawyers.com

---

When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

September 06, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Virginia Code Sec. 11-4.1 makes indemnification provisions in construction contracts that are so broad as to indemnify the indemnitee from its own negligence unenforceable. Of course, this begs the question as to what language of indemnification provisions make them unenforceable. A case from the City of Chesapeake Virginia Circuit Court examined this question. In Wasa Props., LLC v. Chesapeake Bay Contrs., Inc., 103 Va. Cir 423 [unfortunately I can’t find a copy to which to link], Wasa Properties (“Wasa”) hired Chesapeake Bay Contractors (“CBC”) to perform utility work at Lake Thrasher in the Tidewater area of Virginia. Wasa then alleged that CBC breached the contract and caused over $400,000 in damages due to incorrectly installed water lines. Wasa used the following indemnification language as the basis for its suit:

To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner and his agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to attorney’s fees arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Work.

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

---

A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

November 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction." The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent. Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---