Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party

November 18, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The plaintiff insurer's motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order that defendant insurer was obligated to defend a non-party as an additional insured was granted. Am Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 2019 N. Y. Misc. LEXIS 4145 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. July 25, 2019). Quality Building Construction, LLC was the contractor hired to work on exterior facade of a building owned by Central Park West Corporation. The underlying complaint alleged that Quality caused plastic spacers and pedestals used for the penthouse terrace to fall down the roof drain riser. A clog and rainwater backup resulted in water damage to apartment 8A. The resulting damage was allegedly due to the clogged roof drain riser. Quality subcontracted the work to Mega State, Inc. The subcontract required Mega to indemnify and hold Quality harmless against claims in connection with Mega's work, as well as name Quality as an additional insured on a primary, non-contributory bases under Mega's CGL policy. Burlington issued a policy to Mega naming Quality as an additional insured. American Empire issued a CGL policy to Quality. Quality was sued in the underlying action, but Mega was not. American Empire tendered a demand for coverage to Mega and Burlington, relying on the agreement between Quality and Mega. Burlington responded that Mega was not liable for the alleged damages. American Empire sued Burlington. Subsequently, Burlington accepted the tender to defend Quality in the underlying action, and reserved rights as to whether Burlington's policy was primary and on the question of indemnification. American Empire agreed to withdraw its suit if Burlington would modify its reservation of rights. Burlington refused. 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

NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

September 17, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Perhaps in anticipation of Labor Day, the National Labor Relations Board issued its ruling in Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, establishing an easier standard for unions to prove that a joint employer relationship exists. This will make it easier for unions to make the upstream company, like a parent company, liable for unfair labor practices, even if the upstream company had no direct involvement. Some Background BFI runs a recycling plant and contracts with Leadpoint to provide workers to sort garbage in the recycling plant. The staffing agreement specifically stated that Leadpoint was the sole employer of the personnel it supplied and Leadpoint handled supervision of the employees, not BFI. Leadpoint’s employees sought to unionize and an election was held. The union filed a petition seeking a determination that Leadpoint and BFI were a joint employers. 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

The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

May 10, 2017 — Andrew Ralston, Jr. - White and Williams LLP
Complex questions surrounding the application of the Fair Share Act, which modified Pennsylvania’s common law “joint and several” liability law, are being taken up by courts in the Commonwealth with increasing frequency. Given the practical consequences of the differences in application between the Act and “joint and several” liability, additional litigation over the application of the Fair Share Act to real world factual situations will undoubtedly arise. Recent Caselaw Currently, in Roverano v. PECO Energy, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is considering the question of whether, under the Fair Share Act, the jury, or else the trial judge, is responsible for the task of apportioning liability to multiple defendants in a strict liability case. In Roverano – an asbestos case -- a jury awarded the plaintiff $6.3 million. On the verdict sheet were eight joint tortfeasor co-defendants. The judge did not allow the jury to apportion liability to each defendant and, as a result, no guidance was provided by the jury about how much each defendant was to contribute to the award. Instead, the judge merely divided the jury’s award by eight (the number of defendants in the case) and apportioned to each defendant one-eighth of the verdict amount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Ralston, Jr., White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ralston may be contacted at ralstona@whiteandwilliams.com

San Francisco Museum Nears $610 Million Fundraising Goal

June 26, 2014 — Dan Levy – Bloomberg
The biggest museum fundraising campaign in San Francisco history is nearing its $610 million goal two years before the opening of a new wing that will more than double the space for artworks by Andy Warhol, Mark Rothko and David Hockney. About $570 million, or 94 percent, has been raised by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art for its 235,000-square-foot (21,800-square-meter) expansion and to add $245 million to the museum’s endowment. The $305 million wing designed by the Snohetta architecture firm is rising behind SFMOMA’s current home, opened two decades ago in the technology-heavy South of Market area, or SOMA. “In 1995, we were the pioneers when SOMA was pretty run-down, and the tech boom followed us,” Neal Benezra, the museum’s director, said June 20 in a presentation at Bloomberg LP’s San Francisco offices. “Our expansion will solidify the neighborhood as a cultural hub.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dan Levy, Bloomberg
Mr. Levy may be contacted at dlevy13@bloomberg.net

Hirer Not Liable Under Privette Doctrine Where Hirer Had Knowledge of Condition, but not that Condition Posed a Concealed Hazard

December 11, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Privette doctrine, so-called because of a case of the same name, Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 698 (1993), provides a rebuttable presumption that a hirer is not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of hired parties. In other words, if a property owner hires a contractor, and one of the contractor’s employees gets injured while working on the property, there is a rebuttable presumption that the property owner is not liable for the employee’s injuries, the rationale being that because the contractor is required to carry workers’ compensation insurance the contractor is in the better position to absorb losses incurred a workplace injury. There are, however, two widely recognized exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, is the Hooker exception, again named after a case of the same name, Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal.th 198 (2002), which provides that a hirer is liable for injuries to a hired parties’ employees, if the hirer retained control over the work being performed, negligently exercised that control, and the negative exercise of that control contributed to the employee’s injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

February 16, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's depreciation of labor in the calculation of actual cash value was found to be against Arkansas public policy. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Goodner, 2015 Ark. LEXIS 460 (Ark. Dec. 10, 2015). Shelter Mutual's policy provided that it would pay the insured "the actual cash value of all the damaged parts of the covered property." "Actual cash value" was defined as "total restoration cost less depreciation." The policy explained, "When calculating depreciation, we will include the depreciation of the materials, the labor, and the tax attributable to each party which must be replaced to allow for replacement of the damaged part, whether or not that part is damaged." 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

Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

July 09, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law North Carolina
My husband often travels the back roads between Chapel Hill and Fuquay Varina to visit friends. En route (a circuitous route that goes past Sharon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, among other places), he passes by the “Friendly Grocery.” [Sign] No *Loitering*Littering*Alcoholic Beverages on Premises*Bike*Skateboard* *10 minutes Parking Limit*Towing Enforced* I’m not sure which is the “friendly” part of that sign. In fact, the sign seems to be the antithesis of friendly. What does this have to do with your construction contracts? Sometimes, in an effort to please the client and/or secure the project, architects and engineers have the habit of being too friendly in their contract language. That is, you make promises or proposals that may promise too much of a good thing for the client. This can cause big problems. Bigger than being towed away from a rural grocery store in the middle of nowhere. You could be putting your insurance coverage at risk. Have you ever promised to use “best efforts” in your design or plans? Promised to design to a specific LEED standard? Guaranteed 100% satisfaction? You might be putting your errors & omission coverage at issue. By warrantying or guaranteeing something, you are assuming a level of liability well beyond the standard of care required by law. By law, you only need to conform to the standard of care, and your insurance will only provide coverage up to that standard of care. In other words, if you make guarantees or promise “best efforts,” you are contracting to something that will *not* be insured. If something goes wrong, you will be without the benefit of your professional liability coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

The Choice Is Yours – Or Is It? Anti-Choice-of-Laws Statutes Applicable to Construction Contracts

October 03, 2022 — Tiffany Raush & Tanya McGill - ConsensusDocs
During contract negotiations and review, the parties make choices about what risks they are willing to accept and at what cost. But one often overlooked choice—the choice of law applicable to the contract—can undermine carefully negotiated construction contracts and expose contractors to risks they never intended to accept. Choice-of-law provisions are standard provisions in most contracts. These provisions allow the parties to the contract to decide which state’s laws will apply to their contract. Often, choice-of-law in the construction contract is the law of the state where the project is located and there will be no issue. But, if the project is located in an unfamiliar, the owner or prime contractor may prefer the laws of the state where the owner or prime contractor is primarily located over the laws of the state where the project is located. Generally, most states will enforce the parties’ choice of law in a contract. But that may not be the case for construction contracts. States like Texas, California, New York, Florida, Louisiana, and others may prohibit parties from agreeing to the application of another state’s law for construction projects in their states. Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Raush, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Tanya McGill, University of Mississippi School of Law Student, 2023 Graduate (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Raush may be contacted at traush@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES