Construction Law

Plaintiffs claimed structural and cosmetic damage to their neighboring property during the installation of steel sheet piles that supported the condominium's foundation. Plaintiffs alleged that subsurface vibration generated during installation of the panels weakened their foundation and caused structural damage. Working closely with structural and geotechnical engineers, we determined that plaintiffs sustained only modest cosmetic damage, and not structural damage. The case settled at trial for our original offer.

When personal injuries occur on a construction site, Oregon common law intersects with a century-old Employer's Liability Law statute, which can greatly expand the scope of a contractor's liability and damages exposure. We focused on the legal relationship between plaintiff's employer and our client, challenging plaintiff's legal status as an "employee" of the client. The trial court granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff's complaint.

The developer sued numerous subcontractors, alleging faulty workmanship. We organized a roofing subcontractor group and developed a unified defense to the claim of faulty workmanship. Roofing-related damages were minimized and, as a result, we were able to resolve the claim against our client for less than 2% of an estimated Scope of Repair prepared by a neutral party.

Excess weight from installation of light concrete flooring caused the facility's flooring to deflect. Based on our investigation, we established that the deflection and resulting damage were primarily attributable to the architect's design and the general contractor's faulty selection of material. We sought contribution from those parties, and our client was able to reach a reasonable settlement at mediation and avoid further expense.

Our client, a general contractor, was sued for water-intrusion damages on an EIFS-clad home. The Canadian EIFS manufacturer would not participate in the litigation, and we obtained a default judgment. We associated with Canadian counsel to register the Oregon judgment in Canada and collect on it. After deducting the monies received from the EIFS manufacturer, our client's net settlement was nominal in comparison to the damages recovered by the plaintiff from other parties.

The studs milled by our client warped and twisted, causing a partial collapse that resulted in significant delay, consequential damages, and property-related damage. Plaintiff, a homeowner's association, alleged the studs were not properly kiln-dried; our client contended that the general and the framing subcontractor failed to protect the studs from rain and standing water after they were delivered to the site. We examined the site and the client's manufacturing facility on the Olympic Peninsula and retained materials experts to assist in the investigation. As a result, the client was able to reach a favorable resolution in mediation well in advance of trial.