Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days

April 11, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeals recently held the policy's exclusion for repeated water seepage over a period of fourteen days or more does not exclude loss caused by the seepage for the first thirteen days. Hicks v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 2616 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2018). 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

Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

October 08, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found coverage was properly denied based on the subcontractor's failure to follow contract specifications in blasting at the job site. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Carpenter Reclamation, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130752 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 18, 2014). Carpenter was hired by the Board of Education (BOE) to perform preliminary site clearing, demolition, rock excavation, and establishment of sub-grade for a building. Carpenter was to excavate to 3.5 feet below the floor subgrade so that plumbing and other utilities could be installed. Carpenter, however, blasted to depths deeper than required, including some areas that were up to nine feet. The BOE sued, alleging over-blasting and having to pay the cost of remediating the problem, along with breach of contract issues. 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

Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In 1994, after the Northridge earthquake lead to the deaths of 57 people and $2 billion in damage, the Los Angeles City Council considered making a list of buildings that were vulnerable to failure in earthquakes and mandating that they be made seismically sound. The measure did not come to pass. Tom LaBonge, a member of the council, is seeking to finally get that inventory done. According to the Los Angeles Times, thousands of buildings in Los Angeles were constructed with a ground floor level that is insufficient to support the rest of the building in the event of an earthquake. These “soft-story” buildings can be reinforced to better resist earthquakes, but first they need to be identified. Owners of apartment buildings worry about the cost of the retrofits, suggesting that if the city is going to come up with mandatory retrofits, they should also “help property owners pay for it,” as Beverly Kenworthy, the executive director of the Los Angeles division of the California Apartment Association told the Times. San Francisco recently did require retrofits, finding about 3,000 apartment buildings that were at seismic risk. Still, San Francisco doesn’t seem to have moved any faster than Los Angeles, as they were responding to the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, seven years before the Northridge quake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

October 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Pieter M. O’Leary, writing for the site AVVO offers the advice that whether a construction defect is patent or latent could influence whether or not it’s covered in a construction defect claim. He notes that a “patent defect” is “a construction defect that is ‘readily observable or evident,’” while a “latent defect” is “a construction defect that is present but not readily detectable even with reasonable care.” While this may sound like a simple distinction, he notes that “distinguishing between the two can often be difficult and sometimes highly contested by the various parties in a lawsuit.” The first question is “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect.” The question arises because “if a defect is hidden and not detectable (latent defect), a longer time period exists for the claimant to file a claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

January 27, 2020 — Ted R. Gropman & Christine Z. Fan - ConsensusDocs
Construction contracts often include a “no damage for delay” clause that denies a contractor the right to recover delay-related costs and limits the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time for noncontractor-caused delays to a project’s completion date. Depending on the nature of the delay and the jurisdiction where the project is located, the contractual prohibition against delay damages may well be enforceable. This article will explore whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date. Courts are split as to whether damages for a contractor’s “acceleration” efforts are distinguishable from “delay” damages such that they may be recovered under an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause. See, e.g., Siefford v. Hous. Auth. of Humboldt, 223 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 1974) (disallowing the recovery of acceleration damages under a no-damage-for-delay clause); but see Watson Elec. Constr. Co. v. Winston-Salem, 109 N.C. App. 194 (1993) (allowing the recovery of acceleration damages despite a no-damage-for-delay clause). The scope and effect of a no-damage-for-delay clause depend on the specific laws of the jurisdiction and the factual circumstances involved. There are a few ways for a contractor to circumvent an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause to recover acceleration damages. First, the contractor may invoke one of the state’s enumerated exceptions to the enforceability of the clause. It is helpful to keep in mind that most jurisdictions strictly construe a no-damage-for-delay clause to limit its application. This means that, regardless of delay or acceleration, courts will nonetheless permit the contractor to recover damages if the delay is, for example, of a kind not contemplated by the parties, due to an unreasonable delay, or a result of the owner’s fraud, bad faith, gross negligence, active interference or abandonment of the contract. See Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155, 160 (Colo. App. 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. Mo. P. R. Co., 668 F.2d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 1982); Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Iowa S. Utils. Co., 355 F. Supp. 376, 396 (S.D. Iowa 1973). Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Christine Z. Fan, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at gropmant@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

General Contractor’s Professional Malpractice/Negligence Claim Against Design Professional

November 30, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case supports a professional malpractice (negligence) claim by a general contractor against a design professional by reversing a trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the design professional and finding a question of fact remained as to an architect’s role in the renovation of a public construction project. By the appellate court finding that a question of fact remained, the appellate court was finding that it was a triable issue, which is exactly what the general contractor wanted in this case. Getting this issue and the facts to the jury is the leverage the general contractor presumably wanted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

October 22, 2014 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
According to today’s Denver Business Journal, construction defects have emerged as a potential issue in Colorado’s gubernatorial race. During last night’s debate, Republican challenger Bob Beauprez criticized incumbent Democrat John Hickenlooper for failing to help senators with a last-minute push to enact a bill stripping away homeowner protections in construction disputes. Republicans had argued that the bill was needed to appease apartment developers who claim that quality control and insurance costs are too high on condominium projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net

Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor

August 20, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Shareholder Karen Holmes and Law Clerk Justin Reid of Balestreri Potocki & Holmes, in Atlas-Allied v. SD Community College District, the California Court of Appeal “confirmed that a civil engineer owes no duty of care to the General Contractor absent privity of contract.” The Appellate court considered Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP to reach that conclusion. Holmes and Reid commented that the Atlas-Allied decision “can assist in clarifying the extent liability is owed when no contract exists. Here, while unpublished, the 4th District clearly refused to extend a duty by the civil engineer to the general contractor on a public works project, giving counsel guidance on the application of Beacon and prior decisions on design professionals’ liability.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES