Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

April 13, 2020 — Jason Adams - Linked In
By now every construction professional has been inundated with articles regarding the impacts of COVID-19 on the construction industry. The sheer volume of information is overwhelming and changes by the hour. This article is intended to summarize key issues affecting construction professionals and serve as a general road map for navigating the crisis. 1. Determine Project Status The first consideration is whether the construction projects at issue are allowed to proceed given “shelter in place” and related orders. Generally speaking, Governor Newsom has deemed construction to be essential and, therefore, exempt from California’s “Safer at Home” order. There is some debate as to whether the governor’s order takes priority over contradictory local (City and County) orders. For example, some Northern California counties and the City of Berkeley have issued orders expressly providing that their local orders legally supersede the State order because the local orders are more restrictive. If a local ordinance, public entity representative, or the project owner orders the project to shut down, the parties will need to make a fact specific determination regarding how to proceed at that time. If the project proceeds, employee safety is paramount. In the City of Los Angeles employers are required to develop a “comprehensive COVID-19 exposure control plan” that includes a laundry list of safety requirements. Regardless of the jurisdiction, the parties must err on the side of caution and comply with social distancing (six feet), refrain from holding meetings, and close the project to the public. Anyone who can work remotely should be encouraged to do so. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Adams, Gibbs Giden
Mr. Adams may be contacted at jadams@gibbsgiden.com

Ahlers & Cressman’s Top 10 Construction Industry Contract Provisions

July 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
James R. Lynch of Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC, has published the first two parts of the four-part “Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions” series: “As a powerful mechanism to control contract risk, increase predictability, and reduce the cost and complexity of potential disputes, we frequently recommend that our clients’ contracts include a mutual waiver of consequential damages.” The first part “explains the significance of such a clause and the risk a contractor assumes without it,” while the second part discusses “the various categories of damages flowing from a breach of contract and conclude[s] with examples of how parties can limit these damages to reflect their agreed allocation of risk.” Read the full story, Part 1... Read the full story, Part 2... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Home Sellers Have Duty to Disclose Construction Defect Lawsuits

October 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
If you’re selling a home in California that has been the subject of a construction defect lawsuit, you probably have to disclose this, according to Steven G. Lee, an attorney at Reid & Hellyer. Mr. Lee notes that California law mandates the disclosure of “any lawsuits by or against the Seller threatening to or affecting the Property, including any lawsuits alleging a defect or deficiency.” He further notes that “for those selling units in a condominium or townhouse development, this includes defects in the common areas.” He notes that failure to disclose will not invalidate the sale, but the seller may be “liable for actual damages suffered by the buyer.” Merely disclosing the former defect may not be enough. Mr. Lee notes that the California Court of Appeals ruled in one case that although buyers had been informed of past water intrusion, knowledge of the construction defect lawsuit may have affected the buyer’s decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Risk Management for Condominium Conversions

July 31, 2013 — David McLain, Higgings, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
One of the bright spots in the Colorado construction industry over the last few years has been the construction of for-rent apartments. It seems as though apartments are going up everywhere you look along the Front Range. As market forces change, it will be interesting to see whether these units will remain apartments or whether they will be converted into for-sale condominiums or townhouses. One of the risk management strategies we have recently discussed with our general contractor clients who have been asked to build apartments is to ensure that the project remains a for-rent apartment project through the applicable statute of repose, conservatively assumed to be eight years. Unfortunately this is not always feasible, usually because the owner and/or lender are not interested in encumbering the property for such a long period of time, and want to retain the ability to convert the project if and when market forces allow, even if that is before the running of the statute of repose. The purpose of this article is to discuss the insurance and risk management ramifications of converting a project too early. I have recently heard from several sources in the insurance industry that there are owners and contractors who are currently building apartments with the idea that they will be held as apartments for two to three years and then converted to for-sale condominiums or townhomes. While this strategy may have great appeal from a business point of view, it has a very serious risk management downside. Apparently, these owners and contractors are operating under the mistaken belief that they will have no liability exposure to the ultimate purchasers of the converted units or to the homeowners association for construction defects. This is an incorrect belief. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
David M. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. Claimed in a hearing at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that when they sold about $8.5 million of contaminated drywall to Venture Supply Inc. of Virginia, that they had no awareness that the drywall would be sold in the United States. Joe Cyr, an attorney for Taisan told the court that “Venture Supply never said it was going to distribute the goods in Virginia.” One of the judges on the three-judge panel, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, was skeptical of Taishan’s claim, asking, “it was packed and labeled for the Virginia market, isn’t that correct?” When asked by a judge if Taishan was trying to avoid accountability, Cyr said that Tiashan “has not said that it doesn’t want to be accountable for its drywall.” Taishan holds the position that claims against it should be arbitrated in the People’s Republic of China. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

August 10, 2021 — Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLP
Few courts have yet decided insurance coverage issues in litigation involving per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But yesterday, in Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Chemicals, Inc., No. H-20-3493, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146702 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum & Forster) had a duty to defend Chemicals, Inc. against firefighters’ allegations that they were injured by PFAS contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The AFFF claims are consolidated in the multi-district litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, and you can read more about that here. Turning to the decision from August 5, 2021, Crum & Forster issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Chemicals, Inc. for liability arising from bodily injury, to the extent that injury “first occur[ed] during the ‘policy period[.]’” Further, a “Continuous or Progressive Damage or Injury” condition in the policies stated, “If the date cannot be determined upon which such ‘bodily injury’ … first occurred[,] then, … such ‘bodily injury’ … will be deemed to have occurred or existed, … before the ‘policy period’.” The Crum & Forster policies were issued between 2011 and 2019. The complaints in the MDL do not specify when the firefighters were allegedly exposed to PFAS-containing AFFF or when the firefighters first allegedly manifested symptoms of such exposure. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

OSHA: What to Expect in 2022

December 20, 2021 — Stephen E. Irving - Construction Executive
COVID-19 created great upheaval throughout the economy and the legal compliance world as well. The pandemic has been a great disruptor and has brought rules, regulations and related agency guidance that have served to overwhelm even the most conscientious and attentive employer. The welcomed arrival of COVID-19 vaccines, and now the perhaps less welcome OSHA vaccine mandate, simply add to an employer’s compliance burden. While OSHA is busy attempting to implement its vaccine/testing mandate, it also has numerous other significant matters in the works of which employers in the construction industry should be aware. These include new rule drafting and several national and regional emphasis programs, which illustrate OSHA’s current priorities. 1. The Vaccine Mandate Pursuant to a directive from President Biden, in October 2021, OSHA issued an emergency temporary standard implementing a mandate for all employers with more than 100 employees. This mandate requires that employees of such employers be vaccinated for COVID-19 or submit to regular testing. OSHA has also expressed interest in issuing a permanent standard and potentially expanding to include smaller employers. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen E. Irving, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

August 05, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lawyers are still working out all the implications of Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Maronda Homes. Three members of the firm Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed PA, Alexander Dobrev, Michael S. Provenzale, and Tara L. Tedrow on the firm’s web site. They characterize it as a “consumer-protection oriented decision,” quoting the court that the “house is the fondest dream and largest investment, both emotionally and financially, for Florida families.” The court found that Section 553.835 of the Florida laws could not be applied to construction that occurred before the statute become effective in July, 2012. They describe the underlying issue as “the culmination of forty years of evolution to the implied warranty of habitability that is granted by the builder of a new home to the purchaser.” This lead to a 2010 District Court decision that expanded the area covered from “merely the structure itself, along with improvements ‘immediately supporting the residence’” but also those “which provide ‘essential services’ which support the home, make it habitable, or are necessary for living accommodations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES