Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

August 20, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Karen L. Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch in JD Supra Business Advisor analyzed “two decisions holding that California’s Right to Repair Act ('SB 800') is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have also resulted in property damage.” If property damage occurs due to construction defects, a homeowner “may also pursue common law tort causes of action.” After providing a brief background of California’s SB 800 and Aas v. Superior Court (which precluded the Right to Repair Act), Moore discussed the results of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Broofield Crystal Cove, LLC, followed by a review of Burch v. Superior Court. Moore commented that “[t]hese two cases will likely be used by homeowners to avoid application of the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

March 22, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut has issued several decisions of late finding coverage for collapse despite the building not being reduced to rubble. The latest decision in this series is Metsack v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24062 (D. Conn. Feb. 21, 2017). The Metsack's property was insured by Allstate under policies issued from June 27, 1991 to September 9, 2009. From September 2009 to present, Liberty Mutual issued property policies to the insureds. Mr. Metsack built the insureds' home in 1992. The concrete basement walls used concrete supplied by JJ Mottes Company. 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

CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
As a new year begins, Construction Defect Journal has put together the most important issues and topics relating to the construction defect industry in 2015. New cases have arisen to challenge Right to Repair laws and other construction-related claim procedures, some states have made legislative or code changes, as well as other intriguing topics have been discussed in board rooms and over conference calls. We hope you enjoy the look-back at 2015, and we wish you and yours a prosperous 2016. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hawaii Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement on Volcano Damage

September 13, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement reached on behalf of insureds who suffered property damage due to the 2018 Kilauea eruption on the Big Island. Aquilina v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152614 (D. Haw. Aug. 13, 2021). After destruction of their homes due to lava flow, plaintiffs sued various insurers and agents as a putative class action. Plaintiffs claimed they purchased surplus lines policies brokered and underwritten by various defendants. The policies each contained an exclusion for the peril of lava flow, which plaintiffs claimed rendered them worthless or unsuitable given that their properties were located in a high-risk lava zone. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached obligations under the Hawaii Surplus Lines Act, which required that surplus lines insurers conduct a diligent search for other available coverage before placing a homeowner with surplus lines coverage. Plaintiffs alleged defendants should have advised them of the availability of lava-damage coverage through the Hawaii Property Insurance Association (HPIA), a statutorily created association of admitted insurers established in part in response to Kilauea's eruption patterns, which made the private insurance market less likely to Insure certain high-risk areas. 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

“But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

June 21, 2021 — Justin K. Fortescue - White and Williams
While we are all getting used to the “new normal” of working remotely and relying on emails for almost all communications, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provides arbitration practitioners with a stark reminder – the “notice” requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) will be strictly enforced and providing notice of a motion to vacate via email may not qualify as proper service. In O'Neal Constructors, LLC v. DRT Am., LLC, 991 F.3d 1376 (11th Cir. 2021), O’Neal Constructors, LLC (O’Neal) and DRT America (DRT) entered into a contract containing an arbitration provision. Following a dispute, the parties went to arbitration and, on January 7, 2019, the panel issued an award requiring DRT to pay O’Neal a total of $1,415,193. The amount awarded to O’Neal consisted of two parts: $765,102 for the underlying contract dispute and $650,090 for reimbursement of O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. While DRT paid O’Neal the first portion of the award, DRT refused to pay the portion that related to O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. On April 4, 2019, as a result of DRT’s refusal to pay O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees, O’Neal filed a motion to confirm the award in Georgia state court (which was subsequently removed to the Northern District of Georgia). The next day, in a separate action, DRT filed a motion to vacate the attorneys’ fees portion of the award and, that same night, DRT’s counsel emailed O’Neal’s counsel a “courtesy copy” of DRT’s memorandum in support of the motion to vacate. A few weeks later, on April 30, 2019 (i.e., more than three months after the award was issued), DRT served O’Neal (via U.S. Marshall) with a copy of the motion to vacate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams
Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

Ninth Circuit Holds Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Applies Beyond All-Risk Policies

April 20, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit held that the efficient proximate cause doctrine is not limited to all-risk policies. Olin Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4905 (9th Cir. March 17, 2016). Olin operated a plant that produced industrial chemicals. Continental issued a policy covering the plant's boilers and machinery. In late 2008, the machinery was damaged. Continental denied coverage for damage to Olin's diaphragm cells, which were tanks containing metal cathodes covered by asbestos diaphragms. Continental argued that the damage to the cells was not covered because it was not caused by an "accident." The jury returned a verdict in favor of Olin. 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

Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

April 01, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
One of the attendees of the Goldleaf Surety presentation asked a great question about reducing retention under the Nebraska Construction Prompt Pay Act, Nebraska Revised Statutes, 45-1201-45-1211. He wanted to know whether there was any way to reduce and recover retainage during the project. The short answer is retainage should be reduced half way through the project, but there is no right to recover retainge for work performed during the first half of the project. Retainage in Nebraska Under section 45-1204 of the Prompt Pay Act, a contractor may withhold up to 10% retainage. A contract that allows for greater retainage is not enforceable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

“Bee” Careful: Unique Considerations When Negotiating a Bee Storage Lease Agreement

March 27, 2019 — Colton Addy - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
As demand for commercial bees used to pollinate crops (such as almond trees) has grown, so has the demand for facilities to store bees. Entering a lease agreement for the storage of live bees presents some unique issues the parties need to consider when negotiating the lease agreement. Don’t Bee Short-Sighted: Bees are often transported to different areas depending on the time of year, which means bees are not stored in the same facility all year. The lease agreement will often only provide for the storage of bees during the season when the bees are used for pollination in that particular area, but that does not mean the parties must limit the term of the lease agreement to a single season. The parties may consider entering into a lease agreement for multiple years that only applies during the pollination season each year. Bee Mindful of the Rent: Whereas the parties usually base rent in a typical commercial lease agreement off of the square footage of space the tenant uses in the premises, it often makes more sense for both parties negotiating a lease for the storage of bees to base the rent on the number of beehives or bee colony boxes stored at the facility. Basing the rent on the number of beehives or bee colony boxes provides the landlord with flexibility in storing the bees of multiple tenants in the same facility, and it can give the tenant flexibility with the number of bees it may need stored at the facility in any given season. With such a rental arrangement, a landlord should consider asking for a commitment from the tenant to deliver at least a certain number of beehives or colonies for storage, and the tenant should consider asking for a commitment from the landlord to reserve space in the facility for at least that same number of beehives or colonies as the tenant is giving a commitment for. Additionally, the parties will need to determine when rent will be paid. In a general commercial lease agreement, rent is usually paid monthly. With a bee storage lease agreement, however, a landlord may want to require the tenant to pay all of the rent for the season upon delivery of the bees, and the landlord may also want the tenant to pay a percentage of the rent to reserve space in the facility prior to delivery of the bees. This allows the landlord to get an early indication of what space in the facility it will have available in the facility for other tenants given the somewhat flexible rental arrangement of the parties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Colton Addy, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Addy may be contacted at caddy@swlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES