Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Arizona Is Smart About Water. It Should Stay That Way.

February 19, 2024 — Mark Gongloff - Bloomberg
You really have to hand it to Arizona: Even as its population has doubled and it has suffered through a decades long megadrought, the state uses less water today than it did 40 years ago. This success story is the result of what may be the smartest, most conservative approach to water in the country. But homebuilders want to scrap some key elements of this careful system. It’s a bad idea, especially as the climate changes, making the state’s water supply less reliable. And it’s a cautionary tale for the rest of us as we try to adapt to a warming world. In 1980, alarmed at watching its precious groundwater disappear amid rapid development, Arizona passed the Groundwater Management Act. The law established the Arizona Department of Water Resources, set up water-management zones around cities and required new housing developments to prove they had access to 100 years’ worth of clean water, among other things. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Gongloff, Bloomberg

Ex-Engineered Products Firm Executive Convicted of Bid Rigging

March 06, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A federal jury convicted a former executive at an engineered construction products firm Feb. 1 for his role in a bid-rigging scheme that targeted the North Carolina Dept. of Transportation. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Boston Construction Bands With Health Care to Fight COVID-19

January 11, 2021 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
Trade union leaders, construction executives and international health care experts are teaming up in Boston o stop the spread of COVID-19 in the city’s booming construction sector. The coalition unveiled a program called Construction Stops COVID on Dec. 22. The testing, tracing and treatment initiative targets tens of thousands of hard-hatted workers toiling on construction sites across the city. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.

The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.

Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.

Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.

However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

September 09, 2019 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Premises liability is a relatively simple concept: landowners, lessors, and occupiers of land must keep their property safe and avoid causing harm to others. Premises liability lawsuits can arise from an array of circumstances including a slip and fall by an individual, a construction site accident, or an accident at occurs on a residential or commercial property. Under California law, everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property. California Civil Code 1714 (a). When an individual is injured on a property, the person harmed generally brings a lawsuit based upon a theory of negligence. Under this theory, an injured Plaintiff must prove the following:

The defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property;
The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property;
The plaintiff was harmed; and
The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.

California Civil Jury Instructions 1000. When evaluating a negligence claim under the theory of premises liability, there are several key elements for both a Plaintiff and a Defendant to consider. First, the landowner, occupier, or lessor of a premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the use or maintenance of the premises to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968). Essentially, a landowner or occupier is required to take steps to keep individuals on the property free from harm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Repeal Infrastructure Funding Bill

September 25, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California voters will get to vote on November 6, 2018 on a ballot initiative to repeal an infrastructure funding bill signed by Governor Brown this past year that is estimated to raise more than $5 billion annually during the next ten years for road repairs and mass transit improvements in California. In 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which increased the excise tax on gasoline in the state by 12 cents per gallon, to 30 cents per gallon, and increasing vehicle registration fees from $25 to $175 dollars depending on the value of the vehicle. The last time the state’s gas tax was increased was in 1994 and the last time the federal gas tax was increased was in 1993. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

August 26, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In Greene v. Kenneth R. Will, a CGL insurer recently prevailed in a declaratory judgment action arising from an underlying class action alleging pollution and nuisance claims against the insured, VIM Recycling LLC, an Indiana-based waste-recycling facility.[1] “[T]his case has some whiskers on it,” the Indiana federal district court recounted in its exhaustive decision granting the insurer relief. The court relieved the insurer of indemnifying a $50 million default judgment against the insured, which, the court observed, “proved to be a bad neighbor” and “nuisance in both the legal and colloquial sense.” The court held that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the class action. “The judgment against the [insured] came about when a group of nearby homeowners decided that they had had enough of VIM’s polluting behavior and brought this class action to recover damages for environmental violations, nuisance and negligence based on the impact of the waste facility on their homes and property,” the court explained. Eventually, the court entered a default judgment against the insured for $50,568,750, plus an award of $273,339.85 in attorney’s fees. Because the insured was “judgment-proof,” the class action plaintiffs “aligned” with the insured “hoping to collect on their monumental judgment” from the insured’s CGL insurer. Within a few weeks’ time, the class action plaintiffs sued the insurer seeking a declaration of coverage for the default judgment against the insured. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Uncertain Future of the IECC

January 11, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday, I welcome an old friend and past Guest Post Friday contributor, Mike Collignon. Mike is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Green Builder® Coalition. He engages in national and state-level advocacy and publishes regular content for Green Builder® Media. Mike is also the Chair of the WERS Development Group and has served as the moderator or host for Green Builder® Media’s Impact Series webinars from 2012–present. The following is an op-ed based on the author’s attendance at public meetings and conversations with inside sources. “I think that you will all agree that we are living in most interesting times.” – Joseph Chamberlain, 1898 2020 was a historic year, both for reasons we currently comprehend and for reasons we may only understand in retrospect. Depending on how an upcoming ICC Board decision goes, it may prove to be the year the IECC met its demise. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES