Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

January 21, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On January 8, 2015, the Second Appellate district affirmed judgment of the lower court in State Ready Mix Inc. v. Moffatt & Nichol, and barred a concrete supplier from blaming a third party consultant for the concrete supplier's failure to deliver concrete that met project specifications. In 2012, Major Engineering Marine, Inc. was hired by a project manager to construct a harbor pier in the Channel Islands Harbor. Major hired State Ready Mix, Inc. to supply the concrete for the project. State wrote and submitted a concrete mix design and, at the request of Major, civil engineer Moffatt & Nichol reviewed and approved State's mix design at no charge. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In Midst of Construction Defect Lawsuit, City Center Seeks Refinancing

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The owners of the City Center complex in Las Vegas are going through with a refinancing of their $1.8 of debt while they still seek to demolish the Harmon Tower. The cost of building City Center was $8.5 billion, making it the most expensive development on the Las Vegas strip. Unfortunately for the owners, the Harmon Tower isn’t the only empty space in the complex. MGM Resorts is currently in the midst of a construction defect lawsuit against the builder of the Harmon Tower. The judge in the case has given a go-ahead to tear down the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

It’s a Jolly Time of the Year: 5 Tips for Dealing with Construction Labor Issues During the Holidays

December 18, 2022 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
It’s that time of year again – the holiday season is upon us, and for those in the construction industry, that can mean a few extra challenges when it comes to maintaining efficiency on the job site. Here are five best practices for dealing with labor during the holiday season:

Communicate early and often: Make sure to clearly communicate any changes to the schedule or workload to your team as early as possible. This will give them time to plan and prepare, and help prevent any potential issues from arising.
Offer incentives: Consider offering incentives to encourage your team to stay focused and productive during the holiday season. This could be something as simple as a bonus or extra time off, or something more creative like a gift card or other prize.
Stay organized: The holiday season can be a busy time, so it’s important to stay organized and on top of your schedule. This means keeping track of deadlines, delegating tasks effectively, and staying in close communication with your team.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

Are You Ready For 2015?

January 07, 2015 — Craig Martin- Construction Contractor Advisor Blog
Last month’s Engineering News Record Magazine contained an editorial noting the worst projects of the year. Are you prepared if you have a bad project? As the editors aptly pointed out: "By their nature, bad projects disappoint owners, incite hostility among team members, slip months and years past scheduled completions and drain finances." ENR pointed noted a few projects from 2014 that did not go well. 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

"Decay" Found Ambiguous in Collapse Case

August 31, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted, in part, the insured's motion for summary judgment seeking coverage for a collapse of a church's ceiling. Derbyshire Baptist Church v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Distl LEXIS 113346 (E.D. Va. June 29, 2020). A large portion of the sanctuary ceiling of the insured's church collapsed. A claim was filed with the insurer. The insurer hired a forensic engineer who found the collapse was caused by the disconnection of wire support hangers from the wood roof beams. Further, "the redistribution of load on the hangers resulted in a progressive failure of the hangers and their supported components." Based on these findings, the insurer denied coverage. The policy excluded coverage for collapse, but in the Additional Coverage portion of the policy, collapse caused by "decay that is hidden from view" was covered. The court pondered the meaning of "decay," which was not defined in the policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

CDJ’s #2 Topic of the Year: Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014)

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Ewing received quite a bit of attention around the blogosphere, and Tred R. Eyerly of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert wrote a nicely succinct case summary on his blog, Insurance Law Hawaii: “In a much anticipated decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a general contractor who agrees to perform its work in a good and workmanlike manner does not "assume liability" for damages arising out of its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act

October 15, 2014 — Stephen J. Milewski – White and Williams LLP
As a Delaware lawyer, one of the most frequently asked questions I get from insurance clients is: “Do all personal injury settlements with minors need to be approved by the Court?” The answer is and always has been yes. This is true regardless of the amount of the settlement. There have, however, been some recent changes under Delaware law which may help facilitate the process and even reduce the costs associated with settling small tort cases with minors. Traditionally, when settling cases with a minor, a Petition would be filed with the trial court (Superior Court) and then a hearing would be scheduled for the parties to present to the Court the terms of the settlement, explain the plaintiff’s injuries and itemize the fee breakdown. This would be the settlement approval process. After that, the plaintiff would be required to have a guardian appointed over the proceeds, which had to be approved by Chancery Court (Delaware’s Court of Equity). The purpose of this process was to ensure the settlement money going to the minor was managed properly; the net proceeds were generally placed into a bank account not to be used by the guardian or the minor until the minor reached the age of majority. To both the plaintiff, and the insurance carrier paying out the settlement, this process was burdensome and added disproportionate costs to small settlements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Milewski, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Milewski may be contacted at milewskis@whiteandwiliams.com

Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.

After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.

KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.

Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”

As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.

While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”

ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”

In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.

Read the court’s decision…

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES