SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Smithsonian Magazine reported on a new U.S. trend of blending farms and housing developments: The concept is called Development Supported Agriculture (DSA), or more commonly known as “Agrihoods.” In a DSA, “consumers pledge money or resources to support a farm operation, and in turn, receive a share of what it produces, but take the concept one step further by integrating the farm within residential developments.” Residents receive similar perks of being a part of a home owner association such as supported pools, tennis courts, and playgrounds through their contribution to the farm. The first DSA, Prairie Crossing, was built in Grayslake, Illinois to preserve land while adding about 350 residential homes. Willowsford, a new DSA being built in Ashburn Virginia, will have over 2,000 homes. Willowsford’s developers have preserved 2,000 acres, with 300 acres of farmland. The development will be broken into four villages, and each will have its own farm. Part of the popularity of DSAs is that they may “require less of an investment than other green space communities—for instance, communities planned around golf courses,” according to Smithsonian Magazine. “What does it cost to leave the open space alone in the first place? Almost nothing,” said Ed McMahon, the Charles E. Fraser chair on sustainable development and environmental policy at the Urban Land Institute, as quoted by Smithsonian Magazine. “A light bulb went off in the mind of savvy developers who said, ‘Jeez, I can build a golf course development without the golf course.’ So that led to designing communities around other green-space amenities such as a farm.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

December 10, 2015 — Laura C. Williams, R. Bryan Martin & Lawrence S. Zuckerman – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel, Inc. (filed 10/23/15; certified for publication 11/20/15), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant haunted attraction operator holding that the risk of a patron being frightened, then running away and falling is inherent in the fundamental nature of a haunted house attraction. The Court further determined there was no evidence the operator acted recklessly or unreasonably increased such risks beyond those inherent in the attraction. In October 2011, Plaintiff attended The Haunted Trail attraction, which featured actors in costumes jumping out holding prop weapons to scare patrons walking along a trail through Balboa Park. The Haunted Trail also employed a scare tactic known as the “Carrie” effect, in which the patrons walk through a fake exit and suddenly a chainsaw wielding actor appears and charges at the patrons for one final jolting scare. It was during this final scene of The Haunted Trail’s “Carrie” effect that Griffin became frightened by an actor brandishing a chainsaw causing him to suddenly run away in fear. As he was fleeing, Griffin fell and injured his wrist. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Laura C. Williams, R. Bryan Martin and Lawrence S. Zuckerman Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Policy Renewals: Has Your Insurer Been Naughty or Nice?

December 26, 2022 — Latosha M. Ellis & Jae Lynn Huckaba - Hunton insurance Recovery Blog
A review of insurance policies at renewal should be on every business’s annual task list—and it should be checked twice! Just as your business grows and evolves every year, so should your insurance program. Together with staying proactive and preparing for renewal months before the policy expiration, there are a number of best practices to put your business in the best position to maximize insurance recovery, including shopping around, evaluating changes to your business, engaging the appropriate stakeholders, and performing a policy audit with a coverage attorney. Shop Around An early start to the renewal process allows for thorough decision-making and more time to engage in negotiations with the insurer. Even if the preference is to stay with the existing insurer, shopping around creates some buying power within the negotiation process. Evaluate Operational or Business Practice Changes Risk control and mitigation have a direct impact on your premiums and availability of coverage. Assess any changes in the business’s exposure to risk and make any necessary insurance coverage adjustments. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jae Lynn Huckaba, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Ms. Huckaba may be contacted at jhuckaba@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pre-Covid Construction Contracts Unworkable as Costs Surge, Webuild Says

October 17, 2022 — Angus Whitley - Bloomberg
Infrastructure construction contracts signed before the pandemic have become widely unworkable because of the surging cost of labor and materials, supply-chain blockages and difficulties in securing manpower, according to builder Webuild SpA. Milan-based Webuild is wrestling with a 2019 agreement with the Australian government to construct the country’s largest hydroelectric power station for A$5.1 billion ($3.2 billion). It’s meant to be completed by 2026. The Snowy 2.0 project, in the Snowy mountains about six hours’ drive south of Sydney, has come to highlight the challenges of completing large-scale projects on terms that were struck before Covid-19, and before Russia invaded Ukraine. Webuild’s Asia-Pacific director, Marco Assorati, said the value of the Snowy contract, as well as certain other parameters, need to be changed to reflect the current market. He declined to comment specifically on media reports that the consortium has asked the Australian government for an extra A$2.2 billion to complete the work and that the project is 18 months behind schedule. “It is challenging,” Assorati said. “I think clients understand this conversation must happen and there must be a way to cope with unforeseen increases in cost,” Assorati said. “It’s not needed only on the Snowy project. It’s affecting projects everywhere globally.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Angus Whitley, Bloomberg

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

September 20, 2021 — Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner, Burks Smith, and Associate, Katie Keller, represented a national property insurer in a breach of contract action brought by a homeowner in the Middle District of Florida for substantial property damage alleged to have been caused by hail and wind. Throughout the course of litigation, the homeowner disclosed his expert, which is the same individual that prepared the homeowner’s estimate of damages and causation report. The expert’s credentials list that he is a general contractor, independent adjuster, and inspector. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller moved under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude testimony and introduction of any evidence prepared by the homeowner’s expert. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that the homeowner’s expert was not qualified to render expert testimony in this case, as he did not have the requisite qualifications to render an expert opinion, the methodology utilized by the expert to form his opinion was not sufficiently reliable, and his anticipated testimony was not helpful in the case, as it is imprecise and unspecific. Therefore, the expert’s opinions did not meet the standards for admission of expert testimony as set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and should not be admitted as expert testimony at trial. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

April 14, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Travelers Property Casualty Co. v. Centex Homes, No. C 10-02757 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2011), general contractor Centex was sued by homeowners for construction defects. Centex tendered its defense to Travelers as an additional insured under policies issued by Travelers to two Centex subcontractors. Travelers agreed to defend Centex under a reservation of rights and selected defense counsel to defend Centex. Centex refused to accept the defense, asserting that it was entitled to select defense counsel. Travelers filed suit against Centex seeking a declaratory judgment that Centex had breached the duty to cooperate condition in the Travelers’ policy.



Read the full story...



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

May 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Architectural Record, the Harmon Hotel, part of the CityCenter hotel-casino-entertainment complex on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, “is being razed without ever opening.” MGM Resorts International will be demolishing “the unfinished 27-floor, oval-shaped tower following a protracted legal battle with its contractor, Tutor Perini Corp., over building defects.” Demolition is expected to cost $11.5 million, while the “incomplete construction” had cost $279 million. Problems for the hotel began after the discovery “that reinforcing steel was improperly installed on 15 building floors during construction.” Architectural Record reported that a third-party inspector “had falsified 62 daily reports between March and July of 2008 stating that things were okay when they were not. The findings prompted a temporary project shut-down and eventual building redesign.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage

December 30, 2019 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Certificates of insurance are a common tool used in the construction industry to provide proof of insurance coverage. The legal effect of certificates of insurance has been a source of debate in Washington. Insurance companies have argued that certificates of insurance are “informational only” and do not alter the terms of the applicable insurance policy. Insurance companies have taken the position that if a certificate of insurance provides for coverage that is different than what the policy provides, the insurance company is only bound to provide what the policy provides. The Washington State Supreme Court weighed in on this issue in an opinion issued on October 10, 2019, and held that an insurance company is bound by the terms of its certificate of insurance – even if it conflicts with the policy. In T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, Selective’s agent issued a certificate of insurance to “T-Mobile USA, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliates” and stated that those entities were “included as additional insured” under the policy. The certificate of insurance was issued by Selective’s agent when T-Mobile’s contractor purchased an insurance policy from Selective for a cell tower project. The contractor’s agreement for the project was with T-Mobile Northeast – not T-Mobile USA. The contract between T-Mobile Northeast and the contractor stated that T-Mobile Northeast would be an additional insured. The Selective insurance policy stated that any third party would automatically be an additional insured if the contractor was required to name the third party as an additional insured. The contract did not provide that T-Mobile USA would be an additional insured. A property owner damaged by the cell tower project sued T-Mobile USA. T-Mobile USA tendered the claim to Selective. Selective denied the claim because the contract between the contractor and T-Mobile Northeast did not require the contractor to name T-Mobile USA as an additional insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

---