Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux

December 06, 2021 — Megan E. Baroni & Jonathan H. Schaefer - Construction Executive
On Friday, Nov. 5, 2021, Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard was issued, with most requirements set to go into effect on Dec. 5. The ETS applies to employers with a total of 100 or more employees company-wide. Employers covered by the ETS would be required to develop, implement and enforce a mandatory vaccination policy, subject to limited exemptions, or allow unvaccinated employees to test regularly and be subject to a mask policy, among other associated recordkeeping, reporting and training requirements. Almost immediately, the ETS was hit with a number of legal challenges in various courts across the country. On November 6, just a day after the ETS was issued, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order staying the implementation of the ETS until further notice. The Court’s order was not a final ruling on the validity of the ETS but has halted implementation of the ETS, at least for the time being. Other legal challenges are already in process, further complicating the issue of if and when the ETS will become effective. As of November 2021, the ETS is on hold, at least temporarily. That could change any day and the ETS could be back in effect, in whole or in part, or permanently halted. The legal challenges to the ETS are unlikely to end, or diminish, until the Supreme Court has weighed in, making for a few uncertain months ahead. Reprinted courtesy of Megan E. Baroni and Jonathan H. Schaefer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Ms. Baroni may be contacted at mbaroni@rc.com Mr. Schaefer may be contacted at jschaefer@rc.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Cold and wet weather was not bad news for the lumber industry. The weather in the first quarter set or tied records for both precipitation and low temperatures. Not good weather for building. Construction was delayed as a result, leading to less call for lumber. In response, there was a 15 percent drop in lumber futures, continuing a decline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

September 17, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit refused to retroactively apply an Arkansas statute establishing coverage for faulty workmanship. J-McDaniel Const. Co., Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14911 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014). The homeowners sued J-McDaniel for faulty workmanship in constructing their home. The defective construction work was performed by subcontractors. Mid-Continent refused to defend or indemnify J-McDaniel. The insured sued Mid-Continent. The district court dismissed the claim pursuant to Essex Ins. Co. v. Holder, 261 S.W. 3d 456, 460 (Ark. 2008). In Essex, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that defective workmanship resulting in damages only to the work product itself was not an occurrence. Although The Arkansas legislature overruled Essex by statute, the district court found that the Arkansas case law barred retroactive application of the statute. 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

Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

September 30, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

In yet another recent construction defect case, the Illinois Court of Appeal found for coverage. See Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Ct. LEXIS 872 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2011).

Weather-Tite, Inc. hired Larson as a subcontractor to apply sealant to windows installed by Weather-Tite in a condominium building. The windows subsequently leaked and caused water damage. The homeowner’s association sued Weather-Tite for breach of express and implied warranties. Weather-Tite filed a third-party complaint against Larsen alleging that, if it was liable to the association for breach of warranty, Larsen was liable for contribution as a joint tortfeasor. Weather-Tite and Larsen both tendered defenses to Milwaukee Insurance. The tenders were denied and Milwaukee Insurance filed suit to determine rights under the policy.

Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by all parties. The trial court granted Milwaukee Insurance’s summary judgment motion as to Weather-Tite, but granted Larsen’s cross-motion against Milwaukee Insurance.

On appeal, the appellate court considered whether the underlying pleadings alleged facts demonstrating "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence" within the terms of the policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

Should I Pull the Pin? Contractor and Subcontractor Termination for Cause

January 26, 2017 — Patrick McNamara - Porter Law Group
Any owner or general contractor who has a few projects under his or her belt has likely had this thought: “My contractor (or subcontractor) is not performing the way I expected; should I replace him?” The other side of the termination coin is: “This project is not going the way I expected; should I get out?” While there may be an emotional high that immediately comes from terminating a contractor or subcontractor (or leaving a project, in mid-stream), there are many factors to be weighed, before making that decision. Project Delay. Replacing a contractor or subcontractor that has already begun performance always results in delays to the project. Assessing the work in place, interviewing replacement contractors, and negotiating the terms of the new relationship can easily consume weeks, if not months of project time. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com

Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp Obtain Summary Judgment in Favor of Residential Property Owners

December 13, 2022 — Gregory S. Pennington & Emily A. Velcamp - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp obtained summary judgment in favor of their clients, owners of a residential property [the “Owners” or “Defendants”] used as a short-term rental in Beach Haven, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleged injuries resulting from a fall into an open water meter pit, located in the public sidewalk abutting the Owners’ property during the time within which the property was rented to plaintiff and his family. According to plaintiff, defendants breached their duty owed to him, relying on a Borough of Beach Haven Ordinance, thereby allowing the water meter pit to be raised in an unsafe manner, which resulted in plaintiff’s fall and subsequent injuries. After the Court denied defendants’ initial Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that issues of material fact existed regarding defendants’ duty and the alleged breach of that duty, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp argued that their clients, as residential landowners, owed no duty of care to plaintiff for the raised condition of the water meter pit lid, located in the abutting sidewalk, as they did not cause or contribute to the alleged condition. Defendants further argued that even if a duty of care existed, no breach occurred given the lack of notice to defendants, either actual or constructive. Plaintiff attempted to argue that defendants had constructive notice of the lid’s raised condition, relying on his expert report and the fact that defendants had 3.5 months from the date the property was purchased, to the date of the subject accident to discover the lid’s raised condition. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp successfully argued that despite plaintiff’s allegations and the findings contained in plaintiff’s expert report, authored 2 months after the alleged accident, there was still no credible, material evidence to say how long the water meter pit lid was in that raised condition to allow defendants a reasonable time to discover it, remedy it, or report it to the Borough. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and Emily A. Velcamp, Traub Lieberman Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com Ms. Velcamp may be contacted at evelcamp@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

September 25, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
What are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? This is an important question, right? It is probably the most important part of your case. If you didn’t have damages, you wouldn’t be in a dispute. So, I repeat, what are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? The below case explains dealing with a contractor that elected to walk off the job mid-construction. In Forbes v. Prime General Contractors, Inc., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D20194a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), owners hired a contractor to perform a residential renovation job for $276,000. The owners were to pay the contractor in five draw payments (common for residential jobs) where the third draw payment was due upon the contractor’s completion of the dry-in (as defined in the contract). After the contractor received the first two draw payments totaling $138,000 plus an additional $6,000 for updated architectural plans, the contractor claimed the job doubled in price and demanded that the owners pay the contractor the third draw payment immediately (before it was due) plus an additional $31,450. The contractor refused to continue unless the owners agreed to its terms, and then walked off the job when the owners would not agree to these terms (nor should the owners agree to those terms). At the time the contractor walked off the job, the owners’ home was not habitable due to the construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

January 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF

Last fall the Denver Regional Council of Governments approached the Colorado Association of Home Builders to inquire as to why there are no builders developing or constructing for-sale, multi-family projects along the newly constructed light rail lines. By surveying its membership, the CAHB quickly learned that the biggest impediment to such construction is Colorado’s litigation environment, i.e., “if you build it, they will sue.” This started a dialogue within the industry in order to determine what changes developers and general contractors would like to see made in order to consider again building for-sale, multi-family construction. The result of this dialogue is Senate Bill 13-052, introduced on January 16, 2013, and known as the Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013, sponsored by Senators Scheffel and Cadman and Representative DelGrosso. You can find the current iteration of SB 13-052 here.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain
Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES