SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

November 28, 2018 — CDJ STAFF
The Second Circuit recently held that competing “anti-concurrent cause” provisions in a commercial property policy present a potential ambiguity that could result in favor of coverage for losses sustained by Madelaine Chocolate after storm surge from Hurricane Sandy combined to cause substantial damage to Madelaine’s property and a resulting loss of income. Madelaine was insured under an all-risk insurance policy issued by Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Company. By endorsement, Madelaine’s policy added “windstorm” as a covered peril and defined “windstorm” as “wind… regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributes concurrently to, or contributed in any sequence to, the loss or damage.” The policy also included a common flood exclusion that removed coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from waves, tidal water, or tidal waves, or the rising, overflowing, or breaking of any natural harbors, oceans, or any other body of water, whether driven by wind or not. Like the windstorm endorsement, the flood exclusion contained concurrency language that broadened the exclusion to any loss to which flood contributed, regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributed to the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

BWB&O Senior Associate Kyle Riddles and Associate Alexandria Heins Obtain a Trial Victory in a Multi-Million Dollar Case!

May 01, 2023 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Newport Beach Senior Associate Kyle Riddles and Associate Alexandria Heins obtained a significant trial victory on behalf of their client in a multi-million dollar dispute stemming from the construction of a commercial expansion project at a beachfront resort. The owner of the resort alleged that the general contractor was responsible for a significant delay to the completion of the expansion project. The general contractor filed a cross-complaint against BWB&O’s client in an attempt to pass through the delay claims to BWB&O’s client. The general contractor’s delay expert alleged a total 441 days of delay to the completion of the project. A significant portion of the delay was apportioned to BWB&O’s client, for which it faced substantial contractual damages. Senior Associate Kyle Riddles expertly crossed key witnesses and obtained testimony that was extremely favorable to its client. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Is There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When COVID-19 is Present?

April 06, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Most property policies provide coverage for property damage only when there is "direct physical loss" to covered property. Early indications are that COVID-19 remains on surfaces. The duration can last from a few hours to three weeks, depending on the type of surface material. If an employee is infected and the store or restaurant must closed because the virus may rest on surfaces within the building, is there direct physical loss, even though the building structure itself is unharmed? To answer this question, cases from jurisdictions outside Hawaii may provide guidance. In a case from Louisiana, the homeowner had to move out of her home when excessive levels of organic lead were discovered in the kitchen, living room, master bedroom, and attic. Widder v. La. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 82 So. 3d 294 (La. Ct. App. 2011). The insurer denied coverage because there was no direct physical loss. The trial court agreed; since the home was still intact, no direct physical loss had occurred, so there was no coverage under the policy. The appellate court reversed. It compared the presence of inorganic lead in the home to cases that found a direct physical loss from the existence of Chinese drywall, from which gaseous fumes were released, rendering the home unusable or uninhabitable. Physical damage was not necessary. What if smoke from a nearby wildfire fills an outdoor theater, forcing cancellation of performances and loss of business income? This was the situation in Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Inc. Co., 2016 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 74450 (D. Ore. Jun 7, 2016). Wildfires in the area caused smoke, soot, and ash to accumulate on the surface of seats and concrete ground of the open-air theater. The air quality was poor, but no federal, state or local agency ordered cancellation of the performances. Further, the theater did not suffer any permanent or structural damage to its property. The insurer denied coverage, contending that the loss or damage must be structural to the building itself. After all, the smoke in the air at the theater did not require any repairs to the structure of the property. The court disagreed. The theater sustained "physical loss or damage to property" when the wildfire smoke infiltrated the theater and rendered it unusable for its intended purpose. The decision in Oregon Shakespeare Festival was eventually vacated by a joint stipulation of the parties. Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Ins.Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33208 (D. Ore. March 6, 2017), but the reasoning is still sound. 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

---

Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

February 02, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Can a claimant recover attorney’s fees in a Miller Act payment bond dispute even though the Miller Act does not contain a prevailing party attorney’s fee provision? Yes, if the underlying contract that formed the basis of the suit provided for attorney’s fees. What about a prime contractor and surety—can they recover their attorney’s fees if they prevail in a Miller Act payment bond claim and the underlying contract provides a basis for fees? The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S.A. f/u/b/o RMP Capital Corp. v. Turner Construction Co., 2017 WL 244066 (11th Cir. 2017) seemingly just answered this question in the affirmative when it reversed a lower court’s ruling that precluded a prime contractor and surety that prevailed in a Miller Act claim from recovering their attorney’s fees[.] 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

---

The U.S. Flooded One of Houston’s Richest Neighborhoods to Save Everyone Else

December 01, 2017 — Shannon Sims - Bloomberg
“Next contestant, come on down.” On Oct. 6, in a bright courtroom in downtown Houston, Susan Braden, chief justice of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, opens a preliminary hearing with a joke, beckoning a lawyer forward. Braden has flown in from Washington to oversee disputes involving the homes and businesses flooded in West Houston after Hurricane Harvey made landfall over Texas in late August. She has summoned attorneys interested in suing, to get their thoughts on how the proceedings should unfold. Almost 100 lawyers are present, combed and buzzing in anticipation of what promises to be some of the most complex and expensive litigation ever brought against the federal government. Observers speculate that thousands of plaintiffs could eventually join in, and that the total damages claimed could reach $10 billion or more, especially if the big energy and oil companies—whose presence in one section of West Houston gave it the nickname the Energy Corridor—sue over their flooded headquarters. Eighty suits, 11 of which are seeking class-action status, have been filed by homeowners against the federal government, though many of the Energy Corridor’s approximately 9,500 residents are still weighing their options, speed-dating lawyers by phone and at community meetings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon Sims, Bloomberg

---

Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

January 13, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Construction lienors need to appreciate on the frontend that recovering statutory attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is NOT automatic—far from it. This is because the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is determined by the “significant issues test,” a subjective test with no bright line standards based on who the trial court finds prevailed on the significant issues in the case. If you want to talk about the subjective and convoluted nature of recovering attorney’s fees in a construction lien action under the significant issues test, a recent opinion by the Fourth District Court of Appeal is unfortunately another nail in the coffin. In Newman v. Guerra, 2017 WL 33702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), a contractor recorded a construction lien on a residential renovation project and filed a lien foreclosure lawsuit. The homeowner countersued the contractor and asserted a fraudulent lien claim pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.31. An evidentiary hearing was held on whether the lien was a fraudulent lien and the trial court held that the lien was fraudulent (therefore unenforceable) because it included amounts that were not lienable under the law. The remaining claims including both parties’ breach of contract claims proceeded to trial. There was no attorney’s fees provision in the contract. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that the contractor was entitled a monetary judgment on its breach of contract claim. 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

---

Construction Managers, Are You Exposing Yourselves to Labor Law Liability?

February 22, 2021 — Timothy P. Welch - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
When dealing with construction site accidents, who a party is matters. Under Labor Law sections 200, 240(1) and 241(6) owners, contractors, and their agents have a non-delegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection to workers from risks inherent at work sites, with a specific emphasis placed on elevation-related hazards. Given the near strict liability nature of Labor Law section 240(1), it is critical to identify whether a party is a proper Labor Law defendant from the get-go. While identifying the owner (and usually the contractor) may be relatively straightforward, identifying “their agents” has proven to be a more complex undertaking. It should be noted that the requirements set forth in the Labor Law are non-delegable from the standpoint of the owner or contractor, however, the duties themselves can be assigned to “agents” of an owner or “agents” of a contractor. When such an assignment occurs, the same non-delegable duty held by the owner or contractor is imposed on the agents as well. Moreover, “once an entity becomes an agent under the Labor Law it cannot escape liability to an injured plaintiff by delegating the work to another entity.[1]” An entity that often skirts the line between being an agent and not, is the Construction Manager. Traditionally, the Construction Manager has been found to be outside the purview of the Labor Law when its scope of work is narrowly focused on scheduling and general coordination of the construction process. However, when a Construction Manager’s scope expands, so does its risk that it may, in fact, become a proper Labor Law defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy P. Welch, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
Mr. Welch may be contacted at tpw@hurwitzfine.com

---

Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

June 08, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are cases where you feel for the plaintiff, but understand why they did not prevail, despite the creative efforts of their counsel. The case of Robinson v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 958 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2020) is one of these cases. In Robinson, the plaintiff moved into a home that turned out to be infested with a highly venomous spider. Efforts to eradicate the spider proved unsuccessful and the spider apparently infested the entire home. The plaintiff made a claim under their homeowner’s property insurance policy arguing that their home suffered a physical loss caused by the spider infestation as the spider presented an irreparable condition that rendered the home unsafe for occupancy. (It probably did!). The property insurer denied coverage because the policy had an insurance exclusion for loss caused by birds, vermin, rodents, or insects. The insurer claimed the spider is an insect or vermin and, therefore, there is no coverage based on the exclusion. The insured creatively argued that “scientifically speaking” a spider is an arachnid and not an insect. Neither the trial court nor the Eleventh Circuit found this argument persuasive. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---