Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Issuing Judgment After Confirmation of Appraisal Award Overturned

May 01, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment in favor of the insured because after confirming the appraisal award, judgment was issued before the insurer could offer policy defenses. State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Hochreiter, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 743 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2023. After a dispute arose over the scope and amount of damage suffered by the insureds' roof, they sued State Farm. State Farm responded to the complaint by demanding an appraisal, a stay of litigation, and an extension of time to respond to the complaint. The trial court granted the demand and retained jurisdiction regarding post-appraisal matters once the appraisal was complete. The court further ordered State Farm to respond to the complaint within twenty days of the conclusion of the appraisal "if any issues remain." The order did not specify whether the issues that remained had to relate to the initial appraisal stage of the litigation or the subsequent stage during which the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed issues related to coverage. 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

The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

May 24, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Melissa Dewey Brumback. Melissa is a construction law attorney with Ragsdale Liggett in Raleigh, North Carolina. Aside from the fact that she is a UNC grad and fan, she’s okay! In 2017, as it does every ten years, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) updated most of its standard form contract documents, including the A201 General Conditions. This cycle, the contract changes are evolutionary in nature, not revolutionary. Even so, it is crucial to know the changes to avoid making a fatal mistake that could cost you money on a construction project. In reverse order, the top 10 changes you need to know include: # 10: Differing Site Conditions Prior editions of the A201 provided that upon encountering differing site conditions, the Contractor was to promptly provide notice to the Owner and Architect, before the conditions are disturbed, and in no event later than 21 days after the conditions were first observed. A201–2017 shortens the time for notice from 21 to 14 days. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

September 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

Read the full story…

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

Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

February 18, 2020 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Maryland’s highest court recently heard arguments regarding the proper method of allocation of the covered damages from a slowly progressing asbestos injury amongst insurance policies in place over a period of years. Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. 2436 (Md. 2019). The court may also be forced to determine what the proper trigger of coverage is for latent bodily injury claims, although the plaintiff has not framed the issue in that manner. In Rossello, the plaintiff, Patrick Rossello, worked for a period of years for the now-defunct Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. (“Mitchell”), a construction company operating until 1976. In 1974 he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers. He was ultimately diagnosed in 2013 with malignant mesothelioma as a result of that exposure. Rossello obtained a judgment for approximately $2,700,000 against Mitchell and secured the right to pursue its insurance. As relevant to this dispute, Mitchell carried liability insurance policies, which provide coverage for asbestos related claims, from 1974 to 1977. Rossello seeks to hold Zurich, as successor to Maryland Casualty Company, accountable for the full value of his award, based on the 1974 policy. Although this contention actually implicates two separate issues, plaintiff’s counsel passed over the initial trigger of coverage issue and focused instead on the issue of allocation of coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

November 08, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the trial court's order that defense costs be paid for a period during which the insured rejected the defense even though no reservation of rights was issued. OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co. v. Celanese Corp., 2017 Mass. App. LEXIS 140 (Mass. App. Ct. Oct. 16, 2017). Celanese was sued over many years for claims of bodily injury due to asbestos and chemicals allegedly contained in its products and facilities. For many years, Celanese had an agreement with its insurer, OneBeacon, for defense cost-sharing. In April 2009, Celanese terminated this agreement and demanded that OneBeacon defend the cases under the policies previously issued. OneBeacon agreed to defend without a reservation of rights. OneBeacon also agreed to waive any issues of coverage and to indemnify Celanese from any settlements of judgments up to ts full liability limits. However, OneBeacon also sought to assume full control of the defense of claims against Celanese. 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

New York Court of Appeals Takes Narrow View of Labor Law Provisions in Recent Cases

July 03, 2022 — Lisa M. Rolle & Matthew Feinberg - Traub Lieberman
Since the end of March, the New York State Court of Appeals has issued decisions in favor of the defense concerning New York Labor Law §240 and §241. These pro-defendant decisions take a narrow view of the scope of the Labor Law provisions. However, while it remains to be seen how the Court’s below will apply the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, these recent decisions are beneficial for the defense bar going forward. In Toussaint v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J March 22, 2022 N.Y. LEXIS 391 | 2022 NY Slip Op 01955 | 2022 WL 837579, the Court held that 12 NYCRR 23-9.9 (a), does not set forth a concrete specification sufficient to give rise to a non-delegable duty under Labor Law § 241 (6). In Toussaint Plaintiff, who was an employee of Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc., brought the lawsuit against the Port Authority asserting claims under Labor Law § 200 (1) and Labor Law § 241 (6) after he was struck by a power buggy while operating a rebar-bending machine at the World Trade Center Transportation Hub construction site owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Power buggies are small, self-operated vehicles used to move materials on construction sites. On the day of the accident, a trained and properly designated operator drove the buggy into the area near the plaintiff's workstation. That vehicle operator got off the vehicle, but short time thereafter, another worker—who was not designated or trained to do so—drove the buggy a short while prior to losing control and striking plaintiff. Plaintiff relied upon 12 NYCRR 23-9.9(a) which states that “[no person other than a trained and competent operator designated by the employer shall operate a power buggy.” In rejecting plaintiff’s argument the Court held that the "trained and competent operator" requirement is general, as it lacks a specific requirement or standard of conduct. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Matthew Feinberg, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Feinberg may be contacted at mfeinberg@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

September 09, 2019 — Brittany Rupley Haefele - Porter Law Group
Mediation Mediation is a process in which a neutral person or persons facilitate communication between the disputants to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable settlement agreement. During this process, a neutral third party, with no decision-making power, intervenes in the dispute to help the litigants voluntarily reach their own agreement. Through a series of discussions, statements and private caucuses between the parties and the mediator, the process lets both parties negotiate and agree to a resolution with which everyone can abide. It is an excellent method of bringing a dispute to a conclusion without the further uncertainty and expense of litigation. Arbitration Arbitration, in addition to mediation, is one of the most common methods of alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”), whereby the parties bring a dispute before a disinterested third party who is typically selected by both parties. An arbitrator hears evidence presented by the parties, makes legal rulings, determines facts and makes an arbitration award. Arbitration awards may be entered as judgments in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, where there is no agreement, in accordance with California statutes. Arbitrations can be binding or non-binding, as agreed by the parties in writing. In most cases, the arbitrator’s decision is binding and final. When is it Appropriate to Engage in Mediation and/or Arbitration? Mediation can be held at any time, before or during a lawsuit. It is a voluntary process, where both sides simply agree to go to mediation in an effort to get the case settled. Sometimes, it is a contractually required process for the parties to complete prior to going to litigation or arbitration. Typically, in this situation, if a party ignores this requirement and fails to participate in a contractually mandated mediation, they will lose their rights to recover attorneys’ fees and costs – even if they ultimately prevail. Other times, mediation is strongly encouraged by the judge if a lawsuit has already been filed, and some would even say, ordered by the court (though it is typically not called “mediation” but something very similar like a “Dispute Resolution Conference” or “Mandatory Settlement Conference”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brittany Rupley Haefele, Porter Law Group
Ms. Haefele may be contacted at bhaefele@porterlaw.com

Is It Time to Get Rid of Retainage?

June 15, 2020 — David K. Taylor - Construction Executive
Many debate the pros, cons and claims of retainage—when one party to a construction contract withholds a percentage (typically 5%-10%) from an otherwise approved contractor pay application, and which typically is not paid until a project is substantially complete. If an owner withholds retainage from a prime contractor, typically the contractor will in turn withhold retainage from its subcontractors. While retainage has been part of the construction industry for decades, its concept, use (and abuse) have been under more discussion during the past 10 years. Based on heavy lobbying from primary subcontractor groups, state legislatures have passed laws to regulate retainage in commercial projects. Lenders have become more careful about loans and are frequently involved in retainage discussions. Bonded projects are subject to criticism when a surety does not step in and, like the mythical insurance company, write a check. Reprinted courtesy of David K. Taylor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at dtaylor@bradley.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES