SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

September 21, 2020 — Jeff Clare - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the U.S. economy, restaurateurs and bar owners are feeling the brunt of business closures and adaptations necessary to combat the disease. Where cozy and intimate dining was once de rigueur for the restaurant industry, these businesses must now shift to outdoor dining with adequate space and airflow between parties. In response to these concerns, many cities across the country who once fought against the loss of any parking have turned to a post-automobile tactic: outdoor dining in thoroughfares and parking lots. While at first glance it might seem a simple enough prospect—throw some chairs and a table out front, and voilà—property owners and restaurateurs must remain cognizant of various liability and regulatory hurdles for operating outside. With Great Space Comes Great … Potential Liability. One of the largest concerns for landowners in operating in a new space for business is liability. Who is on the hook if someone gets hurt dining in an impromptu dining space in a parking lot? Prior to beginning new outdoor dining operations, landowners and restaurateurs should contact their insurance providers to ensure that the new space is included in their insurance coverage. This is a particular concern for larger commercial landowners who may have various businesses vying to use their parking lot for business. Many leases have carefully crafted clauses limiting where a business may operate and where their liability ceases. Landowners and business owners should review their leases for any such clauses and negotiate with one another to ensure that liability in these new spaces is clearly defined. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Clare, Pillsbury
Mr. Clare may be contacted at jeff.clare@pillsburylaw.com

---

Court Holds That Parent Corporation Lacks Standing to Sue Subsidiary’s Insurers for Declaratory Relief

May 12, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In D. Cummins Corp. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty (no. A142985, filed 3/30/16), a California Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a declaratory relief action filed by the parent holding company of an insured corporation seeking coverage for asbestos claims. Cummings Corp. installed asbestos containing products in California. It had been insured by USF&G between 1969 and 1992. Cummings Holding, LLC was the parent and majority shareholder of Cummings Corp., which had no assets. The holding company claimed to be “the sole entity responsible for managing the affairs of Cummins Corp., including making decisions as to litigation strategy, resolution and settlement,” and sued USF&G seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurer was obligated to defend and/or indemnify Cummins Corp., “in full, including, without limitation, payment of the cost of investigation, defense, settlement and judgment . . . , for past, present and future Asbestos Suits.” The insurer demurred on the ground that the holding company had insufficient interest in its insurance policies and, consequently, lacked standing to sue for declaratory relief. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Workers at Two NFL Stadiums Test Positive for COVID-19, But Construction Continues

April 13, 2020 — Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-Record
Construction at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, Calif., and Allegiant Stadium outside Las Vegas—two new NFL stadiums scheduled to open in 2020—continue forward despite a worker at each location testing positive for COVID-19. Tim Newcomb, 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

---

OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

October 30, 2018 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On October 9, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., Slip Op. 2018-Ohio-4057, finding that a general contractor was not entitled to defense or indemnity from its CGL insurer in a construction defect suit brought by a project owner post-project completion. With this decision, Ohio has solidified its place amongst a diminishing number of states, including Pennsylvania and Kentucky, which hold that there is no coverage for defective construction claims because those losses do not present the level of fortuity required to trigger CGL coverage. This places Ohio amongst the worst in the country on this issue at a time when numerous states have abandoned old precedent and moved towards a policyholder friendly analysis. Ohio Northern University (“ONU”) hired Charles Construction Services, Inc. (“CCS”) to construct the University Inn and Conference Center, a new hotel and conference center on their campus in Ada, Ohio. CCS purchased CGL insurance from Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”) insuring the project. Following completion of the project, ONU sued CCS alleging defects in the construction of the completed project, including allegations that windows improperly installed by one subcontractor led to damage to walls built by another subcontractor. CIC agreed to defend CCS under a reservation of rights but intervened in the action between ONU and CCS to pursue a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify its insured for the alleged losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

---

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (06/28/23) – Combating Homelessness, U.S. Public Transportation Costs and the Future of Commercial Real Estate

August 07, 2023 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, we examine the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding water supply responsibilities, the federal reserve chair’s reaction to possible banking losses, several analyses of the future of commercial real estate, and more!

• California Representative Maxine Waters has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at combating homelessness and fixing the increasingly tumultuous affordable housing situation. (Eliza Relman, Business Insider)
• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government in a case that decided responsibility over water supply as well as the overall dissemination of water usage for the Navajo Nation. (Ariane de Vogue, CNN)
• Unlike other nations with similar construction, the United States’ public transportation has extremely high costs. (Darian Woods, Corey Bridges, Viet Le, NPR)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---

Condo Building Hits Highest Share of Canada Market Since 1971

December 10, 2015 — Theophilos Argitis – Bloomberg
It’s the year of the condo for Canada’s housing market. Construction of multiple units as a share of total new housing starts is at the highest level since 1971, data from Canada Mortgage & Housing Corp. show, as builders in Toronto and Vancouver press ahead with new development. The condo boom -- fueled in part by affordability issues in Canada’s two priciest markets -- is helping offset a slump in construction of single detached homes across the country. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theophilos Argitis, Bloomberg

---

Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A sting operation conducted in Rancho Murieta, California on January 16th by the Statewide Investigative Fraud Team, with assistance from the state Department of Consumer Affairs Division of Investigation netted “11 people accused of illegal, unlicensed home improvement contracting,” reported the Merced Sun-Star. The news source stated that “the statewide drought” provided “a new angle in approaching conservation-minded property owners, according to the Contractors State License Board.” The accusations included “illegal contracting after seeking bids for exterior painting, fencing and landscaping jobs,” according to the Merced Sun-Star. The eleven individuals received notices to appear in Sacramento Superior Court for arraignment March 27th. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

October 26, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers. The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”). After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---