Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

No Coverage Under Property Policy With Other Insurance and Loss Payment Provisions

September 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that the other insurance and loss payment provisions relieved the insurer of coverage obligations. Moroney Body Works, Inc. v. Central Ins. Co., 2015 Mass. App. LEXIS 97 (Aug. 6, 2015). A fire destroyed Moroney's custom-built bookmobile that had just been completed. Moroney had two policies: a commercial property policy issued by Central, and a garage insurance policy issued by Pilgrim Insurance Company. Central denied liability for the bookmobile. Pilgrim covered the cost of repairing the bookmobile. It paid $12,449.82 based on the appraiser's estimate of the repair costs. Moroney thought this amount was inadequate given its own estimate of the repair costs. Moroney sued both insurers. Pilgrim settled by paying Moroney an additional amount which, when added to Pilgrim's earlier payment, resulted in Moroney receiving more than the repair cost. Moroney and Central both moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Moroney's motion. 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

Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

August 17, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

This post will examine whether Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals properly reversed and remanded several lower court decisions in the case of Vision One LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance. In short, and from the perspective of an appellate attorney, the court of appeals got the decision right. Given the rules of contract interpretation and causation in tort claims, there was really no other way the court could have ruled. I understand that from a contractor’s perspective and insurance perspective, the decision seems odd. But from a purely legal standpoint, the decision is well-reasoned and well-supported. Let me explain.

Background

First, here are the facts in a nutshell. Vision One is a construction company that undertook to construct a condo complex in Tacoma. Vision then contracted with D&D Concrete to pour a concrete slab for a section of the foundation. To shore the concrete slab, D&D further contracted Berg Equipment to provide necessary equipment to stabilize the structure. Well, something down the line went wrong. The shoring failed and the slab collapsed, causing a great deal of damage.

Read the full story…

Read the court’s decision…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

July 14, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Shaken? Stirred? A bit hot under the tuxedo collar perhaps? Maybe it’s time for a martini. Or two. When your project’s a mess, your contractor isn’t returning your calls, and you don’t have a license to kill it’s only natural that you would want to go after that other license: the contractor’s license bond. However, except for smaller claims, or situations where you discover that the contractor is or might be judgment-proof, going after a contractor’s license bond isn’t necessarily the panacea many might hope it to be. Read on to learn why. What is a license bond? First, a license bond is not insurance. While insurance is typically limited to property damage and personal injury, a license bond covers a contractor’s violation of the Contractors State License Law. All California contractors are required to have on file a license bond (or, alternative, such as a cash deposit) with the California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). 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

City of Birmingham Countersues Contractor for Incomplete Work

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Back in December of 2013, WVTM News reported that Chris Woods, a contractor, filed a lawsuit against the City of Birmingham, Alabama, demanding $1.5 million for the West Police Precinct and two other projects he had been contracted on. However, “Birmingham claimed Woods was fired for not completing projects on time and other contract breaches.” On March 7th, WVTM News reported that the City of Birmingham has filed a counterclaim against Woods, alleging that he “owes $1.2 million for incomplete work.” The city listed his “inability to meet specific construction deadlines and finish either project on time as factors for his termination.” Woods, however, blamed the city for delays, citing multiple design changes requested by Birmingham. The city’s counterclaim also alleged that “Star Insurance Company, ‘identified major, numerous defects in the work that Woods had performed prior to the termination of the West Precinct Project.’” Read the full story, December 2013 Article... Read the full story, March 2014 Article... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Attorney-Client Privilege in the Age of Cyber Breaches

October 18, 2021 — Shaia Araghi - Newmeyer Dillion
Investigations and forensic reports relating to a cybersecurity breach may not always be protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Companies seeking such reports after a data breach must take caution to protect them from a possible waiver of privilege in the event of subsequent litigation relating to a data breach. The following recent cases highlight the potential waiver of privilege in light of the preparation of a forensic report.

In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 3470261 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020)

After a data breach occurred, Capital One retained a law firm that later entered into an agreement with Mandiant for various cyber-related services (including incident remediation), which required that Mandiant provide deliverables to the firm, rather than to Capitol One. In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 2731238, at *1 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020). Plaintiffs sought release of the report created by Mandiant (regarding the factors leading to the breach), arguing that it was prepared for business and regulatory purposes and therefore was not privileged, while Capital One argued that the report was privileged because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Ibid. The Court determined that Capital One did not carry its burden of establishing that the report was protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and ordered that Capital One produce the report. Id. at *7. In its reasoning, the Court stated that the fact that there is litigation does not, by itself, provide prepared materials with work-product protection. Ibid. The work-product protection applies when a party faces a claim following an event that may result in litigation, and the work product would not have been prepared in a substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation. Ibid.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shaia Araghi, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Araghi may be contacted at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com

Best Lawyers Recognizes Fifteen White and Williams Lawyers

August 17, 2017 — White and Williams LLP
Fifteen White and Williams lawyers were recognized on the 2018 Best Lawyers in America list. Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Team Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Client Under Florida’s Newly Implemented Summary Judgment Standard

August 23, 2021 — Heather Fleming & Gregory H. Lercher - Traub Lieberman
On July 27, 2021, the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida granted summary judgment in favor of a client insurer defended by Traub Lieberman Partner Heather M. Fleming and Associate Gregory H. Lercher in connection with a first party property lawsuit arising from Hurricane Irma that involved multiple, comingled claims, in part resolved via prior appraisal. As of May 1, 2021, Florida state courts have applied a new summary judgment standard after Florida’s longstanding rule was amended by the Supreme Court of Florida. The amendment aligns Florida’s standard with that of the federal courts and the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard codified in Rule 56 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court of Florida’s stated goal in adopting the new standard across the Sunshine State was to improve the fairness and efficiency of Florida's civil justice system, to relieve parties from the expense and burdens of meritless litigation, and to save the work of juries for cases where there are real factual disputes that need resolution. Reprinted courtesy of Heather Fleming, Traub Lieberman and Gregory H. Lercher, Traub Lieberman Ms. Fleming may be contacted at hfleming@tlsslaw.com Mr. Lercher may be contacted at glercher@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

July 02, 2018 — Amy R. Patton, Blake A. Dillion, & Eric C. Sohlgren - Payne & Fears
In a 5 to 4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court overruled a longstanding decision which required government employees who are represented by but do not belong to a union, to pay a fair share or agency fee to cover the union's costs for collective bargaining activities. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court found that requiring such fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment: "[n]either an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay." Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Blake A. Dillion and Eric C. Sohlgren Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES