to perform professional services on a construction project” within the meaning of RCW 51.24.035(1), regardless of whether actual, physical building was taking place at the time and precise location of plaintiffs’ injuries. Thus, Kelly Irving was an “employee of a design professional who [was] assisting or representing the design professional in the performance of professional services on the site of the construction project.” RCW 51.24.035(1). ¶52 Moreover, even if the statute were read more narrowly, it is indisputable that in assisting with the placement of skillets — the synthesis of parts to form an integrated whole — Mr. Irving performed professional services on the site of a construction project. See id.; Edwards v. Anderson Eng’g, Inc., 284 Kan. 892, 902, 166 P.3d 1047 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to the majority’s suggestion, it is
holding that the deadmans statute should not be extended by judicial construction to cases not clearly within its terms recognizing that the decision to undertake a project or how to design the project may be immunized as the exercise of a legislative or quasilegislative function holding that insurance agents and brokers are not professionals within meaning of malpractice statute holding that a construction lender may voluntarily assume a duty to inspect the construction project for the borrowers benefit in addition to the lenders independent contractual right to inspect the project for its own exclusive benefit holding that design professionals marking on pipe to indicate how it should be cut was a construction project within the meaning of a kansas statute similar to rcw 51240351