Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Continuing Breach Doctrine

May 28, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Have you ever heard of the “continuing breach” doctrine? Probably not. It is not a doctrine commonly discussed. It’s a doctrine used to try to argue around the statute of limitations. In an older Southern District Court of Florida case, Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 188 F.R.Ed. 667, 679 (S.D.Fla. 1999), the court explained: “Under this [continuing breach] doctrine, a cause of action for breach of a contract does not begin to accrue upon the initial breach; rather, on contracts providing serial performance by the parties, accrual of a breach of contract cause of action commences upon the occurrence of the last breach or upon termination of the contract.” Recently, this doctrine came up in an opinion by Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. In Hernando County, Florida v. Hernando County Fair Association, Inc., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D947b (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), a plaintiff appealed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of its breach of contract claim based on the statute of limitations. The plaintiff claimed the defendant breached the contract by its failure to substantially redevelop property. The trial court dismissed based on the statute of limitations. However, the complaint alleged the defendant’s failure to comply “with numerous other intertwined, ongoing, and continuing contractual duties and obligations.” Hernando County, supra. The Fifth District reversed based on the continuing breach doctrine: “Where the nature of the contract is continuous, statutes of limitations do not typically begin to run until termination of the entire contract.” Id. quoting and citing Allapattah Servs., Inc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Contractor Prevails in Part Against CalOSHA in Valley Fever Case

February 26, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Fever. Specifically, Valley fever. Caused by the fungus Coccidioides. It lives in the top two to 12 inches of soil, can become airborne when the soil is exposed, and can cause respiratory illness and even death. And apparently, it is present in many parts of California particularly in the Central Valley and along the coast. Who knew? In Granite Construction Company v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, Case No. C086704 (2023), contractor Granite Construction was cited by CalOSHA for exposing its employees to Coccidioides at a large solar power plant known as California Flats Solar Project in Monterey California. The 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in part. It should be noted that this case originally unpublished, it was then published, and then later depublished, so it should not be relied on for precedential value. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

August 10, 2021 — Karen C. Bennett - Lewis Brisbois
Last week, in North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals suggested that Congress did not intend for the states, or tribes, to take final action on Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 applications within a year of filing. The opinion conflicts with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2020 final rule that sought to limit state and tribal certifying authorities’ ability to delay federal projects through various tolling schemes. 85 Fed. Reg. 42210 (Jul. 13, 2020). EPA’s rule, codified in existing regulations, states that the CWA imposes a strict one-year deadline for certification decisions, otherwise certification is waived. However, the Fourth Circuit’s view suggests that this waiver is not triggered in cases where the certifying authority has acted on the application, even if it takes longer than a year to make a final certification decision. The court ultimately decided the case on other grounds, leaving a resolution on the statutory interpretation question for another day. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com

What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Jerry Brown recently signed into law a bill requiring the state of California “to assess its properties in the Sacramento area and develop long-term plans for renovating, replacing or selling the most troublesome buildings,” according to SF Gate. Some say the Board of Equalization building, which was built for $80 million and then repaired for $60 million has construction defects, is “jeopardizing the health and safety of public employees.” Current problems include “[f]looding, mold, falling windows and free-falling elevators,” reported SF Gate. Furthermore, recently, “three employees filed a $75 million lawsuit against the state, alleging toxic mold in the building is causing extreme fatigue, skin rashes, persistent flu-like symptoms, respiratory illnesses, frequent headaches, memory lapses and fears of cancer.” “This is a disaster,” Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, who authored the bill regarding assessing state capitol buildings, told SF Gate. “It endangers the health and safety of employees and the public alike. And it is costing state taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Duty to Defend Triggered by Damage to Other Non-Defective Property

February 20, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found the insurer must defend because there was a possibility of damage to property due to work not performed by the insured. B&W Paving & Landscape, LLC v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225783 (D. Conn. Dec. 15, 2022). In 2010, Whiting Turner Contracting Company (WT) contracted with United Illuminating Company (UI) to act as general contractor for the construction of UI's new central facility. WT subcontracted with Cherry Hill Construction, Inc. (Cherry Hill) for work underneath the parking lot and driveways, including installing base and sub base materials. WT also subcontracted with B&W Paving and Landscape, LLC (B&W) for the asphalt paving. In 2018, UI sued WT for defective and incomplete work. WT then filed a third-party compact against its subcontractors, including B&W. WT sued for contribution for any liability it may have to UI for the paving work. 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

City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act

June 17, 2024 — David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On June 17, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court delivered a significant opinion in the case of City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association (Case No. 22SC293). This decision provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) and the economic loss rule in the context of construction defect claims. Background of the Case The case arose from a construction defect dispute between the City of Aspen, which served as the developer and declarant for the affordable housing condominiums at issue, and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, the HOA created by Aspen to manage the association after the period of declarant control. The Association alleged that Aspen breached various warranties related to the construction of affordable housing units, leading to structural deficiencies. Aspen argued that the CGIA barred these claims because they could lie in tort. The Lower Court’s Decision The district court initially agreed with Aspen, holding that the Association’s claims sounded in tort and were therefore barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the principle that governmental immunity protects public entities from liability for claims that ‘lie in tort or could lie in tort,’ as established by the CGIA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Construction Managers, Are You Exposing Yourselves to Labor Law Liability?

February 22, 2021 — Timothy P. Welch - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
When dealing with construction site accidents, who a party is matters. Under Labor Law sections 200, 240(1) and 241(6) owners, contractors, and their agents have a non-delegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection to workers from risks inherent at work sites, with a specific emphasis placed on elevation-related hazards. Given the near strict liability nature of Labor Law section 240(1), it is critical to identify whether a party is a proper Labor Law defendant from the get-go. While identifying the owner (and usually the contractor) may be relatively straightforward, identifying “their agents” has proven to be a more complex undertaking. It should be noted that the requirements set forth in the Labor Law are non-delegable from the standpoint of the owner or contractor, however, the duties themselves can be assigned to “agents” of an owner or “agents” of a contractor. When such an assignment occurs, the same non-delegable duty held by the owner or contractor is imposed on the agents as well. Moreover, “once an entity becomes an agent under the Labor Law it cannot escape liability to an injured plaintiff by delegating the work to another entity.[1]” An entity that often skirts the line between being an agent and not, is the Construction Manager. Traditionally, the Construction Manager has been found to be outside the purview of the Labor Law when its scope of work is narrowly focused on scheduling and general coordination of the construction process. However, when a Construction Manager’s scope expands, so does its risk that it may, in fact, become a proper Labor Law defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy P. Welch, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
Mr. Welch may be contacted at tpw@hurwitzfine.com

Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

March 28, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”

Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”

The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”

Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”

In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”

The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”

The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”

The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.

Read the court’s decision…

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES