Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

August 19, 2015 — Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLP
In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

Carillion Fallout Affects Major Hospital Project in Liverpool

October 30, 2018 — Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record
Managers of a 90%-complete, 646-bed hospital in Liverpool will take charge of the project after unravelling a public-private partnership with the contractor Carillion Plc, which collapsed ignominiously in January (ENR 1/22 p. 12). Following cancellation of the contractor’s other large U.K. hospital P3, near Birmingham, project lenders face large losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Reina, ENR
Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com

Important Insurance Alert for Out-of-State Contractors Assisting in Florida Recovery Efforts!

November 01, 2022 — Richard W. Brown & Stephanie A. Giagnorio - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Significant portions of Florida suffered extensive damage from Hurricane Ian. Many out-of-state contractors have sent their workers to Florida to help with the cleanup and rebuilding process. SDV is sending out this important notice for all out-of-state contractors to contact their workers’ compensation brokers and insurers to ensure their out-of-state workers’ compensation policy will cover workers in Florida. The state of Florida does not recognize the “All States Endorsement” on workers’ compensation policies, and in some instances could potentially result in out-of-state contractors being without coverage in the State of Florida. As per the Florida Division of Workers’ Compensation: “Out of State Employers must notify their insurance carrier that they are working in Florida. If there is no insurance, the out-of-state employer is required to obtain a Florida Workers’ Compensation Insurance policy with a Florida approved insurance carrier which meets the requirements of Florida law and the Florida Insurance Code. This means that ‘Florida’ must be specifically listed in Section 3A of the policy (on the Information Page).” Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Stephanie A. Giagnorio, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Ms. Giagnorio may be contacted at SGiagnorio@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Two Worthy Insurance Topics: (1) Bad Faith, And (2) Settling Without Insurer’s Consent

February 20, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, American Builders Insurance Company v. Southern-Owners Insurance Company, 56 F.4th 938 (11th Cir. 2023), is an insurer versus insurer case that touches on two important insurance topics: (1) common law bad faith against an insurance company, and (2) an insurer’s affirmative defense that an insured settled a claim without its consent. The Eleventh Circuit provides invaluable legal discussion on these topics that any insured (and an insured’s counsel) need to know and appreciate. While this article won’t go into the granular facts as referenced in the opinion, it will go into the law because it is the law the facts of a case MUST cater to and address. In this case, a person performing subcontracting work fell from a roof without fall protection and became paralyzed from the waist down. The general contractor had a primary liability policy and an excess policy. The general contractor’s primary liability insurer investigated the accident and assessed the claim. The subcontractor’s liability insurer, which was the primary insurance policy (the general contractor was an additional insured for work the subcontractor performed for the general contractor), did little to investigate and assess the claim and then refused to pay any amount to settle the underlying claim or honor its defense and indemnity obligation to the general contractor. 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

Tenants Underwater: Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Privity Requirement for Property Damage Claims Against Contractors

April 25, 2022 — Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation Strategist
In United States Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exch., et al., No. 21A-CT-580, 2022 Ind. App. LEXIS 87 (Automatic Sprinkler), the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Court of Appeals) considered whether there is a privity requirement for property damage claims against contractors. The court imposed a privity requirement. The court also addressed whether a subrogation waiver in a contract with a tenant applied to damage caused by work done outside the contract, at the landlord’s request. The court held that the waiver did not apply. In this case, United States Automatic Sprinkler (Automatic Sprinkler) contracted with a tenant (Contract Tenant) to inspect and test a sprinkler system at a commercial building in Indiana. The contract included a waiver of subrogation provision. The building landlord subsequently hired Automatic Sprinkler to repair a leak in the sprinkler system. After completing the repairs, the system failed and flooded the building, causing significant property damage to several tenancies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

Exclusion for Construction of Condominiums Includes Faulty Construction of Retaining Wall

August 04, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The exclusion for suits arising out of construction of condominiums encompassed the underlying claim for faulty construction of a retaining wall. HT Serv., LLC v. Western Heritage Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16259 (10th Cir. June 1, 2021). HT Services was a land developer. HT Services designed and constructed a residential community. The AOAO sued HT Services for negligent design and construction of a retaining wall. When its carrier, Western Heritage Insurance Company, denied coverage, HT Services sued. The district court granted summary judgment to Western. The exclusion eliminated coverage for claims or suits "arising out of, relating to or in any way connected with 'your operations' . . . involving the development [or] construction . . . of . . . condominiums . . . or . . . residential structures." HT Services argued that a retaining wall was not a "residential structure." 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

Catch 22: “If You’re Moving Dirt, You Need to Control Your Dust” (But Don’t Use Potable Water!)

February 18, 2015 — Stephen McKae – California Construction Law Blog
Returning from an Oregon vacation this past Summer along I-5, I found frequent reminders of the extraordinary drought conditions prevailing across California. A grey smoky gloom blanketed the California-Oregon border from Ashland to Weed from at least five wildfires. The prediction of rains in the north state was more curse than blessing as lightning threatened to touch off tender-dry fuel in the forests and start more fires. Farmers tilling fields produced massive dust clouds. And under the I-5 bridge along the Sacramento River arm of Lake Shasta, the lake had receded to the original streambed. On NOAA’s Palmer Drought Severity Index, nearly all of California is listed as in a condition of extreme or severe drought, and the Governor has issued a Proclamation of Continued State of Emergency requiring water conservation measures affecting all California residents. Indeed, early August news reports indicate that hopes of relief from an El Nĩno year are waning. The State Water Resources Control Board’s Emergency Regulation No. 2014 issued July 15 mandates action to reduce water use and require larger water suppliers to activate their Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The emergency regulation will remain in effect until April 25, 2015 unless extended due to ongoing drought conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen McKae, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. McKae may be contacted at smckae@wendel.com

The Importance of Engaging Design Professional Experts Early, with a Focus on Massachusetts Law

June 27, 2022 — Jay Gregory - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
In any Massachusetts case alleging negligence against a design professional, an expert witness on the topic of liability is a critical, early consideration. Given the expense of expert witnesses, counsel representing design professionals are wise to evaluate (1) the need for an expert, (2) the timing of the engagement of an expert, and (3) the scope of the expert’s services. To begin, not every allegation of negligence against a design professional necessitates an expert opinion. “The test for determining whether a particular a particular matter is a proper one for expert testimony is whether the testimony will assist the jury in understanding issues of fact beyond their common experience.” Herbert A. Sullivan, Inc. v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., 439 Mass. 387, 402 (2003) (addressing duties of an insurer). For instance, in its ruling in Parent v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., the Massachusetts Supreme Court noted no expert would be necessary to prove professional negligence where an electrician was injured by a mislabeled distribution box carrying 2,300 volts. 408 Mass. 108 (1990). It is reasonable to expect lay jurors to comprehend the duty of an electrician to properly label a distribution box carrying potentially fatal quantities of voltage. To the extent liability is readily recognizable to the average juror (i.e. “within the ken of the average juror”), significant cost savings are achievable by forgoing the use of an expert witness. That, however, is the exception. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jay S. Gregory, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Gregory may be contacted at jgregory@grsm.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES