Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Fifth Circuit, Applying Texas Law, Strikes Down Auto Exclusion

July 11, 2022 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
Penn-America Ins. Co. v. Tarango Trucking, LLC, 30 F.4th 440 (5th Cir. 2022), involved a coverage dispute over Penn-America Insurance Company’s (“Penn-America”) duty to defend and indemnify third-party claims against Tarango Trucking, LLC (“Tarango”) for a fatal accident on its property. At the time of the accident, Penn-America insured Tarango under a commercial general liability policy, which included an “Auto Exclusion” and “Parking Exception” provision. The Auto Exclusion stated the policy did not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use of any automobile, including the operation and loading or unloading. The Parking Exception stated the Auto Exclusion did not apply to parking an auto on Tarango’s premises. The main issues on appeal were whether the Parking Exception restored coverage otherwise precluded by the Auto Exclusion, and whether the district court prematurely decided Penn-America’s duty to indemnify. The appellate court answered yes to both. On March 2, 2020, a truck driver employed by WS Excavation, LLC (“WS”), parked his tractor-trailer on Tarango’s property and proceeded to inspect and off-load heavy equipment. While operating the hydraulic lift, the tractor’s braking system disengaged. The tractor rolled back and struck the WS driver and his personal vehicle, resulting in his death and significant property damage. Notably, WS allegedly failed to properly maintain the tractor’s electronic and braking systems, and Tarango allegedly failed to maintain a level parking and loading facility compliant with industry standards and guidelines. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

December 30, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 446 P.3d 304 (Cal. 2019), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with a sewer backup. The court held that in order to establish inverse condemnation against a public entity, a property owner must show that an inherent risk in the public improvement was a substantial cause of the damage. Since the dental practice did not have a code-required backwater valve — which would have prevented or minimized this loss — the court found that the city was not liable because the sewage system was not a substantial cause of the loss. This case establishes that a claim for inverse condemnation requires a showing of a substantial causal connection between the public improvement and the property damage. It also suggests that comparative negligence can be a defense to inverse condemnation claims. In December 2009, a dental practice, WGS Dental Complex (WGS), located in the City, incurred significant water damage as a result of untreated sewage from the City’s sewer main backing up into WGS’ building. WGS submitted a claim to its insurance carrier, The Dentists Insurance Company (TDIC) and, in addition, sued the City for its uninsured losses, alleging inverse condemnation and nuisance. TDIC joined the litigation, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass and inverse condemnation. Under California law, when a government entity fails to recognize that an action or circumstance essentially amounts to a taking for public use, a property owner can pursue an inverse condemnation action for compensation. The City filed a cross-complaint against WGS for failing to install a code-required backwater valve on their lateral sewer line, which would have prevented or minimized the backup. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. WGS then sought a judicial determination on the issue of inverse condemnation. The City presented evidence that the sewage system was designed in accordance with industry standards, and that WGS failed to comply with the City’s plumbing code by failing to install a backwater valve on its private sewer lateral. The trial court found the City liable for inverse condemnation because the blockage that caused the backup originated in the City’s sewer line. The court held that the blockage was an inherent risk of sewer operation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the City would have had to prove that the WGS’s lack of a backwater valve was the sole cause of the loss in order to absolve itself of liability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

September 15, 2016 — CDJ STAFF
Landowners and developers bogged in an EPA wetland determination were recently thrown a life line when the United States Supreme Court determined The Army Corps of Engineer’s (Corps) “jurisdictional determinations” (JD) regarding wetland designations are reviewable by the court. United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) landowners and developers who do not have the proper permits can face severe criminal and civil penalties for releasing any pollutant into “the waters of the United States.” Anybody stuck wading through the permitting process will tell you it is difficult, time consuming, expensive, and may eventually prohibit the intended use of the property. Furthermore, there is yet to be a consensus on the definition or scope of the term “waters of the US”. Consequently, a landowners or developers may never be certain whether a permit is necessary before conducting any activity that may discharge a pollutant into a “water of the United States”. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Minahan, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Minahan may be contacted at sminahan@ldmlaw.com

Hawaii Court Looks at Changes to Construction Defect Coverage after Changes in Law

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A construction defect case lead at the U.S. District Court for Hawaii involved the insurer’s changed views on what was covered based on court decisions that came after the policy was written. John R. Casciano and Jessica L. Urban of Steptoe & Johnson LLP discuss the case on their firm’s website. They note that in Illinois National Insurance Company v. Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., Nordic built a retail building which soon afterwards had water leaks and property damage, due to alleged defects in the roof construction. Nordic had purchased comprehensive general liability and umbrella polices, with coverage that included property damage. Mr. Casciano and Ms. Urban note that “at the time of contracting, the Ninth Circuit had predicted that, ‘if the Hawaii Supreme Court examined the matter, it would rule that, for purposes of insurance coverage, construction defects were “not occurrences.”’” After the policy was written, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals did rule that “construction defect claims do not constitute an ‘occurrence’ under a CGL policy.” On the basis of this, Illinois National determined that they had no duty to defend or indemnify their client. Nordic made a claim of bad faith, but the court determined that “an insurer that denies coverage based on an open question of law does not act in bad faith, an insurer that actually relies on governing law, even if the insurer only belatedly learns of the law, cannot be said to thereby act in bad faith.” However, the court denied a summary judgment of Nordic’s claim of negligent misrepresentation, determining that there was “a question of fact as to whether the Policies covered [or were represented as covering] only damage to third parties caused by subcontractors’ defective work.” Finally, the court found that “a reasonable jury could infer that, at the time the Polices were issued, the insurers meant to cover claims arising out of the defective work” of Nordic’s subcontractors. They conclude that the Nordic decision “recognizes the varying consequences for coverage claims when post-contracting changes to the law may not coincide with the expectations of at least one of the parties at the time of contracting.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Denial of Coverage Unsuccessful

September 28, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's motion to reconsider an order granting the insurer summary judgment challenges the insured's theory it was an additional insured was rejected by the federal district court. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Superior Labor Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133127 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2017). The court previously granted Lexington Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment, finding Allied Shipyard, Inc. was not an additional insured and was not entitled to a defense in the underlying actions. On reconsideration, Allied argued the court ruled it was not a "certificate holder" under the Lexington policy, but Allied was not given the opportunity to conduct discovery with respect to whether it was a "certificate holder." Summary judgment was granted before Allied answered Lexington's amended complaint in intervention. Allied submitted its answer could have raised a genuine issue of material fact because it was entitled to coverage under the policy if it was a certificate holder. 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

“But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

May 30, 2018 — Bobby Kethcart - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In real estate cases—which frequently involve long purchase agreements, loan documents, personal guarantees, deeds of trust, etc.—we’ve likely all had a client or opposing party who trots out the line that they didn’t know what they were signing, or they didn’t read or understand what they were signing, so the document shouldn’t be enforced according to its terms. Most of us instinctively believe the claim is a loser: You signed the document, you’re bound by it. But is this actually right? Well, we did some digging. Here is the Arizona law on the subject: Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, 134 Ariz. 557, 658 P.2d 210 (App. 1982):

“A mistake of only one of the parties to a contract in the expression of his agreement or as to the subject matter does not affect its binding force and ordinarily affords no ground for its avoidance, or for relief, even in equity.” “A manifestation of acceptance to the offeror or his agent forms a contract regardless of the intent of the acceptor.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bobby Kethcart, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Kethcart may be contacted at rkethcart@swlaw.com

Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

July 19, 2017 — Bethany Barrese – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed that Nationwide acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim against its insured for the policy limits, exposing the policyholder to an excess verdict.1 The case arose out of a 2005 automobile accident where Seung Park, who was insured by Nationwide, struck and killed another driver, Stacey Camacho. Shortly after the accident, Ms. Camacho’s estate issued a time-limited demand for the full limits of the policy Nationwide issued to Mr. Park, $100,000, to settle the case. After the deadline to respond to the demand expired, Nationwide rejected the demand and made a counteroffer. A settlement could not be reached and a wrongful death suit was filed against Mr. Park, resulting in a massive jury verdict of $5.83 million. Following the jury verdict, Mr. Park assigned his rights against Nationwide to Ms. Camacho’s estate, which then filed claims for negligence and bad faith failure to settle against Nationwide. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the estate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com

California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

September 22, 2016 — Patrick J. Paul – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
On July 21, 2016, the California Supreme Court in Property Reserve v. Superior Court upheld the state’s precondemnation entry and testing statutes provided they were reformed to allow impacted property owners the ability to have a jury trial to determine damages associated with such entry and testing. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) sought to construct water conveyance facilities that would require significant property condemnation. As part of this process, DWR further sought to investigate the environmental and geological suitability of more than 150 private properties considered for the conveyance route. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES