Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeals determined that there was no coverage for damage to the insured's home caused by the installation of Chinese drywall. Peek v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co., 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14147 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2015). Chinese drywall was installed in the Peek's new home. After moving in, the Peeks reported to American Integrity a sulfur odor caused by the Chinese drywall. The odor caused the Peeks to vacate their home. The Peeks also claimed corrosion and deterioration of copper coils in the air conditioning system were caused by the Chinese drywall. American Integrity denied coverage based upon policy exclusions for latent defects, corrosion, pollutants, and faulty, inadequate or defective constrution materials. The Peeks sued American Integrity. 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

Construction News Roundup

September 19, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Much happened in the last week or so in Virginia construction, both legally and otherwise. I thought a quick roundup was in order. On the green front we has a great article in ENR relating to the liability risk of green building and the great interest in the AGCVA Green Building Breakfast. Also, the Virginia courts decided several interesting cases: The first is Travelers Property Cas. Co. of America a/s/o Covenant Woods v. Premier Project Mgmt. Group LLC v. Haskell Co. a case that reminds everyone that waivers of third party rights under the contract will be enforced in Virginia. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

October 21, 2015 — CDJ STAFF
Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., (BHA) is proud to be partnering with the State Bar of Texas, Construction Law Section, as a sponsor and exhibitor at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law to be held November 12 & 13, 2015 at The Westin Austin at The Domain. With offices in San Antonio and Houston, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in over 5,500 cases. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of developers, general contractors and subcontractors. BHA’s experience covers the full range of construction defect litigation, including single and multi-family residential (including high-rise), institutional (schools, hospitals and government buildings), commercial, and industrial claims. BHA also specializes in coverage, exposure, premises liability and delay claim analysis. As the dynamic litigation climate in Texas continues to change, and as the number of construction defect and other construction-related cases continues to rise and become more sophisticated, it is more important than ever for contractors and builders to be aggressive in preparing for claims before they are made, and in defending against those claims once they are filed. Since 1993, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting services, and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, in Texas and across the Western United States. Register for the Basic Course... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

November 04, 2019 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
Hyundai Construction Equipment Americas Inc. and its parent company are paying a $47-million civil penalty to settle federal allegations that the company sold construction vehicles that weren't certified to meet the appropriate Clean Air Act emissions standards, federal agencies say. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

United States Supreme Court Limits Class Arbitration

May 13, 2019 — Jeffrey K. Brown & Raymond J. Nhan - Payne & Fears
On April 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") bars orders requiring class arbitration when an agreement is ambiguous about the availability of such a procedure. Lamps Plus v. Varela, 587 U.S. __ , 2019 WL 1780275, (2019). In Lamps Plus, the Court clarified a 2010 case in which it held that a court may not compel arbitration on a class-wide basis when an agreement is silent on the availability of class arbitration. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 687 (2012). In Lamps Plus, a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court explained that because the FAA envisions the use of traditional individualized arbitration, a party cannot be forced under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless the parties explicitly agreed to do so. Because class arbitration does not share the benefits of traditional arbitration -- lower costs, greater efficiency and speed, and the parties' choice of a neutral -- the FAA requires more than an "ambiguous" agreement to show that the parties bound themselves to arbitrate on a class-wide basis. Unlike individualized arbitration, or even traditional class actions, class arbitration raises serious due process concerns because absent class members will have limited judicial review. Based on these critical differences between individual and class arbitration, the Court reiterated in Lamps Plus that "courts may not infer consent to participate in class arbitration absent an affirmative contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so." Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey K. Brown, Payne & Fears and Raymond J. Nhan, Payne & Fears Mr. Brown may be contacted at jkb@paynefears.com Mr. Nhan may be contacted at rjn@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

March 08, 2021 — Lindsay T. Watkins - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
As COVID-19 disrupts work and life as we know it, the question many contractors have is what protections are available against the inevitable project impacts and delays? Generally, construction contracts require a contractor to timely perform work until project completion or potentially face damages (liquidated or actual) and possible termination. When events occur, however, that are beyond our control (such as a national pandemic), it is important to review and understand what contract provisions or avenues are available for potential relief. 1. Review Your Contract For A Force Majeure Provision. A “force majeure” contract provision is commonly included in construction contracts, service agreements, purchase orders, etc. It typically covers events or conditions that can be neither anticipated nor controlled. These provisions, however, will vary greatly from contract to contract and may not include the language “force majeure” but rather may be included in general delay or impact clauses. For example, some common provisions include:

Washington State Department of Transportation Clause (2018 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction): The Contractor shall rebuild, repair, restore, and make good all damages to any portion of the permanent or temporary Work occurring before the Physical Completion Date and shall bear all the expense to do so, except damage to the permanent Work caused by: (a) acts of God, such as earthquake, floods, or other cataclysmic phenomenon of nature, or (b) acts of the public enemy or of governmental authorities; or (c) slides in cases where Section 2-03.3(11) is applicable; Provided, however, that these exceptions shall not apply should damages result from the Contractor’s failure to take reasonable precautions or to exercise sound engineering and construction practices in conducting the Work.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay T. Watkins, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Watkins may be contacted at Lindsay.Watkins@acslawyers.com

Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

August 30, 2021 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, 2021 WL 3204491 (7/29/2021), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether a home builder’s attempt to disclaim implied warranties of workmanship and habitability was effective. In that case, the buyer initialed the builder’s prominent disclaimer of all implied warranties, including implied warranties of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, the buyer sued the builder, claiming construction defects. The builder moved for summary judgment, seeking enforcement of the disclaimer of warranties. The trial court granted the builder’s motion for summary judgment, thereby enforcing the disclaimers. The buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – as a matter of public policy – the implied warranties of workmanship and habitability were waivable. The Court of Appeals started the analysis by noting that the Arizona Supreme Court had, in a 1979 case, judicially eliminated the caveat emptor rule for newly built homes. The court further noted the long history of cases detailing the public policy favoring the implied warranties. But the court also noted the competing public policy of allowing parties to freely contract; explaining that the usual and most important function of the courts is to maintain and enforce contracts rather than allowing parties to escape their contractual obligations on the pretext of public policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

December 02, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty & Yvette Davis – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vebr v. Culp (Filed 10/28/2015, No. G050730), the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of homeowners, where an employee of an unlicensed painting company was injured on the premises. Despite the fact that the painting company was deemed unlicensed for failure to acquire workers’ compensation insurance, the negligence presumption of Labor Code § 2708 was inapplicable to the homeowners as de facto “employers" of the plaintiff. Plaintiff, Tomas Vebr, was employed by OC Wide Painting, a licensed painting contractor. OC Wide Painting had a license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but had filed for an exemption from the requirement that it maintain workers’ compensation insurance. The exemption was granted on the basis OC Wide Painting “did not have any employees.” However, OC Wide Painting actually had multiple employees, including Vebr. Therefore, by operation of law, the license was deemed void. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES