Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

November 12, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Despite the need to shore up the ceiling, the building was not in a state of collapse under the language of the policy. Ravinia Vouge Cleaners v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123594 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2019). Ravinia Cleaners held a property policy issued by Travelers for the building from which it operated its dry-cleaning business. On February 2, 2015, there was heavy snowfall. On February 4, Ravinia reported to Travelers a leak coming from the ceiling. A temporary "shoring " was placed on the ceiling. Ravinia reported to Travelers that there was damage to the roof on February 25, 2015. Travelers hired an engineer who observed a buckling truss and roof displacing downward. The inspector recommended that the building be vacated and not occupied until adequate shoring was in place. Travelers denied coverage because the building was in a state of imminent collapse which was caused by the weight of ice and snow, and defective construction of the truss system. The policy excluded damage relating to a "collapse of a building." Collapse was defined by the policy as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building," such that the building could not be occupied for its intended purpose. There were exceptions to the exclusion, however, if the cause of the collapse was: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred after construction. The policy also excluded damage from a building being in a state of imminent collapse unless the damage was caused by: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred during construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

May 08, 2023 — Drew M. Jorgenson & Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer Dillion
The Elimination of Judgment by Confession Following in the footsteps of Massachusetts and Florida, California recently updated California Code of Civil Procedure section 1132 which renders judgments by confession unenforceable and inadmissible in any superior court, effective January 1, 2023. The bar is not retroactive, so judgments by confession obtained or entered before January 1, 2023 are still valid. Moving forward, consider the following. What is a Judgment By Confession? A judgment by confession, also known as a confession of judgment or "cognovit" clause, is a mechanism by which a debtor agrees that a creditor may summarily obtain a legal judgment against that debtor and enforce it in the event of the debtor's breach of contract or default. In other words, it is a private admission by a debtor that they are liable for a debt without the need for a trial, and consequently, agree to forfeit very important rights. Most importantly, parties agreeing to such clauses are waiving rights such as the right to notice of the judgment and the right to assert defenses against the creditor or third party's claims. Historically, without any judicial involvement, these types of out-of-court judgments would be enforceable. Reprinted courtesy of Drew M. Jorgenson, Newmeyer Dillion and Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Jorgenson may be contacted at drew.jorgenson@ndlf.com Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

"Is the Defective Work Covered by Insurance?"

January 04, 2018 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Originally Published by CDJ on March 16, 2017 I have been asked this question quite a bit from owners, in particular: “The contractor committed defective work, but it has insurance. Doesn’t the insurance cover this defective work?” Ugh, NO! There is this misconception that liability insurance, specifically, is the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to defective work. This could not be further from the truth. Don’t get me wrong – liability insurance is important; it is very, very important. However, liability insurance does not cover the risk of an insured’s defective work. Rather, liability insurance is designed to cover the risk of resulting damage: damage resulting from defective work. This is a significant distinction and one that is often overlooked. This is also why anyone encountering defective work should be working with an attorney to maximize insurance coverage or realize that the issue is not covered by insurance. Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Federal Government Partial Shutdown – Picking Up the Pieces

February 27, 2019 — Jacob W. Scott -
Now that the partial shutdown has ended (though with the specter of another just around the corner), contractors are asking, “What now?” and “What did that cost me?” Although every case is fact-specific, following are some guidelines for moving forward after the shutdown. Following up on our previous guidance, contractors should make sure that any court, board, or agency filings made during the shutdown were received and properly docketed. If there is any question whether a filing was received, file it again as soon as possible with proof of the earlier attempt to file. The busiest tribunals, such as the federal courts, the Court of Federal Claims, the Boards of Contract Appeals, and the Government Accountability Office, remained open, or at least open to accept filings, and all indications are that filings made during the shutdown were received and acknowledged. But for some of the other tribunals or agencies, such as the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Office of Hearings and Appeals and the SBA Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, prudence dictates double-checking that all filings were received. In many cases, non-statutory deadlines have been or will be adjusted by the court, board, or agency. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jacob W. Scott, Smith Currie
Mr. Scott may be contacted at jwscott@smithcurrie.com

Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes Four Snell & Wilmer Attorneys As Rising Stars

July 15, 2019 — Snell & Wilmer
Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that four attorneys in the Orange County and Los Angeles offices have been selected for inclusion in the 2019 Southern California Rising Stars list. Steffi Gascón Hafen, Estate Planning and Probate Hafen is a Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law, California Board of Legal Specialization. Her practice is concentrated in tax, trust, and estate matters with emphasis in estate planning, trust and probate administration, and estate and gift taxation. Irina Ling, Tax Ling's practice is concentrated in estate planning and taxation matters. She has experience assisting clients with all aspects of estate and tax planning, including advising clients on various charitable giving devices and business succession. Irina also assists clients with estate and gift tax issues, property tax issues, and probate and trust administration. Joshua Schneiderman, Mergers and Acquisitions Schneiderman advises clients on a wide range of transactional matters, including mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures and public and private offerings of debt and equity securities. He advises clients on matters related to franchising, including the establishment of new franchise systems and the expansion of existing franchise systems nationally and internationally. Jeffrey Singletary, Business Litigation Singletary concentrates his practice on business litigation in state and federal courts. He represents clients in matters involving breach of contract, business competition torts, real estate, public and private construction projects, and various intellectual property litigation matters, including trademark, trade dress, trade secret and patent claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

My Construction Law Wish List

December 31, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I’ve been good this year. Not great mind you, but good, and good is the standard, right? So, here’s my construction law wish list this holiday season: 1.More Transparency. So much uncertainty and resultant litigation exists for the simple reason that contractors and subs don’t know when a higher tiered contractor or owner (on a lender financed project) has been paid for their work. So how about a requirement that owners, contractors and subcontractors of all tiers be required to disclose when payment applications are submitted, when payments are made and in what amount, and what pay applications have been paid. And because I’m pretty sure I’m at least within the 20th percentile of “good” this year how about a requirement that this information be provided through an online database accessible by all persons working on projects valued at over a certain dollar amount, say $500,000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals

December 11, 2023 — Jason Taylor & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub Lieberman
In this appeal brought before the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurance carrier client (the “Carrier” or “Client”), affirming an award of summary disposition in favor of the Carrier in a coverage lawsuit. The coverage lawsuit involved a priority dispute between the Carrier and another insurer over which company’s policy had responsibility to cover the defense of their mutual insured, a heating and cooling contractor (the “Insured”) in an underlying lawsuit alleging carbon monoxide poisoning. The Carrier issued a contractor’s pollution liability policy and the other insurer issued a commercial general liability policy to the Insurer. Both the Carrier and the other insurer filed cross-motions for summary disposition in the trial court on the priority of coverage issue. The trial court granted the Client’s motion, holding that the CGL carrier was the primary insurer based on the language in the policies’ “other insurance” clauses. The trial court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument to apply the “total policy insuring intent” or “closest to the risk” tests—tests which Michigan courts have not adopted. Specifically, the court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument that the Client’s contractor’s pollution liability policy was more specifically tailored to the loss in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court also rejected CGL carrier’s alternative argument that the “other insurance” clauses in the policies were irreconcilable, requiring a pro rata allocation based on the respective limits of the policies. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman and Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas

February 05, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (No. C074546, Filed 1/27/2015) (“Greenwell”), the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held a California resident could not establish specific personal jurisdiction over an insurance company, located in Michigan, which issued a policy of insurance to the California resident where the claimed loss occurred in Arkansas. Plaintiff purchased a policy of insurance from defendant, Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (“Auto”), a Michigan corporation. The policy provided commercial property coverage for an apartment building owned by Plaintiff, located in Arkansas. The policy also provided commercial general liability coverage for plaintiff’s property ownership business, which plaintiff operated from California. Both coverage provisions insured certain risks, losses, or damages that could have arisen in California. The dispute which arose between Plaintiff and Defendant, however, involved two fires that damaged the apartment building in Arkansas. As a result of coverage decisions that Auto made in the handling of the claim, plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES