Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness Directory

Toolbox Talk Series Recap - The New Science of Jury Trial Advocacy

December 31, 2024 — Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute Resolver
In the November 21, 2024 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series, John Jerry Glas discussed how construction lawyers should adjust their trial strategies in response to shifts in juror attitudes. Glas believes that jurors have changed in the last twenty years, with modern jurors being more reluctant than ever to be seen as a lawyer’s puppet. Instead, they simply want a lawyer to help them organize and wade through evidence without spinning it and without spoon-feeding it. Essentially, Glas believes that lawyers achieve better jury trial results if they acknowledge the paradigm shift in jury psychology and reinvent themselves in response by influencing jury deliberations without directly telling a jury what to do. Glas refers to this as the “Waiter Pivot” and recently published a book on the topic. Throughout his presentation, Glas discussed how construction lawyers can embrace the Waiter Pivot throughout a jury trial:

Voir Dire: Lawyers make their first impressions on a jury during voir dire. As such, lawyers should avoid questions that make jurors feel judged or stereotyped. Instead, give the jurors credit and make use of the opportunity to begin framing their case. For example, Glas once repeated the word “specifications” or “specs” in every question during voir dire where his product liability case turned on whether or not the product deviated from specifications.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

In Appellate Division First, New York Appellate Team Successfully Invokes “Party Finality” Doctrine to Obtain Dismissal of Appeal for Commercial Guarantors

December 23, 2024 — Dean Pillarella - Lewis Brisbois
New York, N.Y. (November 20, 2024) - In Roc-Le Triomphe Associates, LLC v. DeSouza, 2024 NY Slip Op 05654 (1st Dep’t 2024), Associate Dean Pillarella, a member of the Appellate Practice, successfully invoked the party finality doctrine to obtain the dismissal of an appeal for the firm’s commercial guarantor clients. The action concerned rent allegedly due and owing under a commercial lease by the lease’s tenant and guarantors. Pursuant to a 2022 order, the guarantors were awarded summary judgment and dismissal of all claims against them, with the landlord’s claims against the tenant left intact. After the decision and order was served with notice of entry by the prevailing party, the landlord did not file a notice of appeal from the order but, instead, filed a notice of appeal from a later judgment months after the time to appeal the order had expired. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dean Pillarella, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Pillarella may be contacted at Dean.Pillarella@lewisbrisbois.com

Untangling Unique Legal Issues in Modern Modular Construction

September 09, 2024 — Chad Theriot & Brad Sands - Construction Executive
Modular construction has grown significantly over the last few years and shows no signs of slowing down. This construction method is a departure from traditional approaches where all construction activity occurs onsite. Modular construction involves building standardized project components—usually in an offsite, controlled environment—which are then transported and assembled at the project site. Offsite construction generally allows for better quality control and economic efficiency, as it can utilize an assembly-line process. Modular fabrication can also centralize skilled labor in regions with lower labor costs. Establishing each party's expectations upfront is always important, but even more so in modular construction since much of the construction activity is performed away from the ultimate project site. This requires extensive coordination among designers, fabricators, installers and owners to ensure construction, testing and quality progresses accordingly. Every field change and design clash could have an exponential impact on the modular fabrication efficiencies given the assembly-line approach and remote nature of modular work. Reprinted courtesy of Chad Theriot & Brad Sands, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

Arizona Court Affirms Homeowners’ Association’s Right to Sue Over Construction Defects

October 15, 2024 — Melissa Kenney - White and Williams LLP
In Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0375, 2024 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 696 (Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona (Court of Appeals) discussed whether a homeowners’ association can file an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability arising from construction defects. At issue was whether the implied warranty extended to the areas within the community that the association maintained, including the common areas. The Court of Appeals held that homeowners’ associations can sue builder-vendors for breach of the implied warranty arising from construction defects. In this case, a homeowners’ association, responsible for managing and maintaining a community of townhomes, sued the developer/builder for alleged construction defects in the common area and exteriors of homes that the association maintained for the homeowners in the community. The alleged defects included the pool cabana and staircase walls in the common areas and the exterior walls, roofs, and staircases on the separately owned townhomes in the community. The builder filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the implied warranty extended to dwelling actions initiated by homeowners – not homeowners’ associations – and that the alleged construction defects at issue were not related to a dwelling. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals determined that both common law and statutory law authorized the homeowners’ association’s breach of implied warranty claim. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

September 09, 2024 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that five Partners have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. In addition, seven attorneys have been included in the 2025 Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch list. These recognitions include attorneys from the firm’s Hawthorne, NY; Chicago, IL; Palm Beach Gardens, FL; and St. Petersburg, FL offices. 2025 Best Lawyers® Hawthorne, NY

Lisa L. Shrewsberry – Commercial Litigation

Chicago, IL

Brian C. Bassett – Insurance Law

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

Rina Clemens – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

St. Petersburg, FL

Lauren S. Curtis – Insurance Law
Scot E. Samis – Appellate Practice

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

When Cyber Crooks Steal Payments, Think Insurance Makes Up The Loss? Think Again.

November 18, 2024 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
In Summer 2023, the payment system for a small office and warehouse project that Beck Properties was developing for itself in South St. Paul, Minn., seemed to be running smoothly. Emails were criss-crossing back and forth and paper checks were landing in mailboxes. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story...

Word of the Day: “Contractor”

September 16, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
What’s in a word? When it comes to insurance policies, a word, can potentially mean millions of dollars. In California Specialty Insulation, Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, 102 Cal.App.5th 1 (2024), an insured and its insurer battled it out over the word “contractor,” and whether an exclusion from coverage of bodily injury to any employee or temporary worker “of any contractor or subcontractor,” excluded a personal injury claim brought by an employee of a general contractor against a subcontractor. The California Specialty Contractor Case In 2017, Air Control Systems, Inc. (“Air Control”) was contracted to perform improvements at a building in Los Angeles, California. Air Control in turn subcontracted with California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (“CSI”) to install duct insulation on the project. During construction, an employee of Air Control was injured when he fell 16 to 20 feet from a ladder that was struck by a scissor lift driven by an employee of CSI. Approximately two years later the Air Control employee filed a personal injury lawsuit against CSI. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Federal District Court Addresses Material Misrepresentation in First Party Property Damage Claim

August 26, 2024 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Pittsfield Dev. LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117530 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed an alleged material misrepresentation by an insured during the course of the adjustment of a water loss claim at an insured property. Subsequent to a pipe burst event which caused damage to a number of the floors in the insured building, the insured submitted a claim to Travelers and also submitted, with the assistance of a retained public adjuster, a damage estimate of the damages at the property. Included within the estimate submitted by the insured was a line item for "Lead Paint & Asbestos Removal" with a corresponding dollar amount of $1,140,000. It was this line item which formed the basis of Travelers' claim of misrepresentation. At his deposition, the public adjuster testified that the $1,140,000 figure was an oral estimate received over the phone from an asbestos remediation company. Travelers disputed the testimony and contended that no such estimate was ever provided. For support, Travelers pointed to deposition testimony from a remediation company employee that while rough estimates were occasionally given verbally, the largest over the phone estimate she could recall was in the $20,000-$25,000 range. It was also disputed that the company would ever provide an oral quote of that magnitude sight unseen, especially since the largest project the remediation company had ever completed was less than $250,000. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES