Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Beware of Statutory Limits on Change Orders

February 18, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
While change orders are always part of construction projects, it’s important to know whether a public agency is limited on how much it can increase the scope of the work through change orders. A contractor in Virginia found out the hard way that the state agency did not have the authority to increase the scope of the project and thus the contractor could not collect for the extra work. In Carnell Construction Corp. v. Danville Redevelopment & Housing Authority, the contractor was hired by the housing authority to prepare a site for construction. The project did not go well and both sides blamed the other for delays and increased costs. After being removed from the project, the contractor sued the housing authority for, among other things, breach of contract. The jury awarded the contractor a total of $915,000 for the housing authority’s failure to pay for extra work and improper removal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

October 07, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019) (PJR Construction), a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to bar coverage for property damage to property on which a construction company allegedly performed faulty work. The court’s opinion follows prior New Jersey state court precedent, including Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Island Pool & Spa, Inc., 12 A.3d 719 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011) (Island Pool), but also provides additional guidance on the elements which can make the Ongoing Operations Exclusion applicable to exclude coverage. In PJR Construction, a commercial property owner engaged a construction company to build a 26,000 square foot swim club and related 3,000 square foot pavilion building in New Jersey. After about 75% of the work was completed, the property owner fired the construction company and denied it access to the property. The owner later sued the construction company in New Jersey state court alleging “shoddy workmanship” in, among other things, sealants, flashing, water resistant barriers, masonry and the handicap ramps. The construction company sought coverage from its CGL insurer, which denied coverage based on, among other things, the j.(5) Ongoing Operations Exclusion. After the denial of coverage, the company sued the insurer in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaration of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

September 30, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

In yet another recent construction defect case, the Illinois Court of Appeal found for coverage. See Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Ct. LEXIS 872 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2011).

Weather-Tite, Inc. hired Larson as a subcontractor to apply sealant to windows installed by Weather-Tite in a condominium building. The windows subsequently leaked and caused water damage. The homeowner’s association sued Weather-Tite for breach of express and implied warranties. Weather-Tite filed a third-party complaint against Larsen alleging that, if it was liable to the association for breach of warranty, Larsen was liable for contribution as a joint tortfeasor. Weather-Tite and Larsen both tendered defenses to Milwaukee Insurance. The tenders were denied and Milwaukee Insurance filed suit to determine rights under the policy.

Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by all parties. The trial court granted Milwaukee Insurance’s summary judgment motion as to Weather-Tite, but granted Larsen’s cross-motion against Milwaukee Insurance.

On appeal, the appellate court considered whether the underlying pleadings alleged facts demonstrating "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence" within the terms of the policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Repairs to the Medina County District Library in Lodi, Ohio should be complete next spring. The library’s lawsuit over the roof is just beginning. The library building was a $3 million project in 2005, but the building had to close in 2011 when it was determined that the roof was not structurally sound. The lawsuit names six defendants, including the contractor, the framing subcontractor, and the engineering firm. The library seeking damages, legal expenses, and attorney fees. The cost of replacing the roof was $1.5 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Big Builder’s Analysis of the Top Ten Richest Counties

June 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Big Builder took Forbes’ 2014 top ten richest U.S. counties list (based on household median income) and researched who the top builders were in those regions, buyer requirements, among other categories. The top three richest counties according to Forbes and Big Builder are Falls Church, Virginia; Loudoun County, Virginia; and Los Alamos County, New Mexico. Information listed for each county include the median-closing price, price per square foot, living square feet, top builders, and an examination of what makes each region unique. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FEMA Fire Management Assistance Granted for the French Fire

July 08, 2024 — The Federal Emergency Management Agency
OAKLAND, Calif. – The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Region 9 Administrator authorized the use of federal funds on July 4 at 11:37 p.m. PDT / 2:37 a.m. EDT to assist the state of California to combat the French Fire burning in Mariposa County. On July 4, the state of California submitted a request for a Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG). At the time of the request, the fire threatened approximately 1,019 homes in and around Mariposa, CA, population 1,300. 95% of the threatened homes are primary residences and 5% are secondary residences. The fire started on July 4, 2024 and had burned more than 790 acres of State and private land. The fire was 0% contained. There are five large fires burning uncontrolled within the State. FMAGs provide federal funding for up to 75 percent of eligible firefighting costs. The Disaster Relief Fund provides allowances for FMAGs through FEMA to assist in fighting fires that threaten to become a greater incident. Eligible costs covered by FMAGs can include expenses for field camps, equipment use, materials, supplies and mobilization, and demobilization activities attributed to fighting the fire. For more information on FMAGs, visit https://www.fema.gov/assistance/public/fire-management-assistance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

An Expert’s Qualifications are Important

January 28, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An expert’s qualifications are important. Please remember this the next time you retain an expert to analyze documents or data and render an opinion based on that information. An expert must be qualified to render an opinion. Otherwise the expert will not be allowed to render the opinion you may be looking for or need for purposes of trial, as discussed below. A recent personal injury case, White v. Ring Power Corp., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2729a (Fla. 3d 2018), involved a crane operator that became severely injured when operating a leased crane. The case proceeded to trial against only the equipment lessor of the crane based on the plaintiff’s contention that there were deficiencies with the crane. The plaintiff intended on using expert witnesses to interpret the crane’s load movement indicator (referred to as LMI) and render opinions that the LMI data showed prior overloads of the crane which resulted in the injury to the operator of the crane. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

No Duty To Defend Additional Insured When Bodily Injury Not Caused by Insured

July 26, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no duty to defend a suit for bodily injury against the additional insured where the injury was not caused by the insured. Consigli Constr. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95339 (D. Mass. June 21, 2017). Consigli was the general contractor for a renovation project at a high school. Among the subcontractors was American Environmental, Inc., who was responsible for demolishing concrete floors within the existing structures, and Costa Brothers, who did the masonry work. Wellington M. Ely was an employee of Costa Brothers and worked as a mason on the project. Costa Brothers had a CGL policy with Travelers. As a subcontractor, Costa Brothers agreed to name Consigli as an additional insured on its policy. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES