SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

January 06, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the insurer that there was no coverage for a collapse under the policy. S.O. Beach Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.,2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32569 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2019). S.O. Beach Corporation and Larios on the Beach, Inc ("Larios") owned a building in Miami Beach. Sometime between march 4, 2012 and April 10, 2013, Larios discovered that parts of the first three floors of its building had caved in to varying degrees. The primary cause of the collapse was a wooden support beam that had severely rotted. Larios found a broken pipe that was gushing water onto the beam, causing deterioration. Larios was forced to evacuate the building until the damage was repaired. Larios submitted a claim under its all-risk policy with Great American. The policy required that a collapse an "abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building" to be covered. Before a coverage decision was made, Larios sued for breach of contract. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Great American's motion and denied Larios' motion. 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

---

A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut

February 15, 2018 — Stella Szantova Giordano – SDV Blog

On December 19, 2017, the Connecticut Supreme Court released its decision in Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pasiak. The decision is significant for two reasons: 1) it clarifies the amount of proof an insurer needs to determine whether an exclusion to coverage applies; and 2) it found that where an insurance policy expressly provides coverage for an intentional act such as false imprisonment, common-law punitive damages are also covered.

Underlying action

The underlying action proves that real life is often stranger than fiction. Ms. S worked as an office help for a construction company owned by Mr. P, which operated out of his home. Ms. S was working alone in the home office, when an armed, masked intruder entered the office, tied her hands, gagged and blindfolded her and, pointing a gun to her head, threatened to kill her family if she did not give him the combination to a safe in the home. As this was happening, Mr. P entered the office, unmasked the intruder, and discovered it was his lifelong friend. After Ms. S was untied, she asked to leave, but Mr. P told her to stay. She was not allowed to leave for several hours as Mr. P made her accompany him to an errand. Ms. S sued Mr. P for false imprisonment, among other things. The trial court awarded her compensatory and punitive damages. Insurance coverage for the underlying judgment is at the heart of the Pasiak case.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Szantova Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

---

Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform

February 18, 2015 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
On February 10, 2015, Senators Scheffer and Ulibarri introduced Senate Bill 15-177, which is sponsored in the House by Representatives DelGrosso and Singer. SB 15-177 amends the prerequisites, found in the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”), for an association to file a construction defect action. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Business, Labor, and Technology but not yet scheduled for hearing. The major points of the bill include: 1) enforcement of a mediation or arbitration provision contained in the original governing documents of a common interest community, even if subsequently amended or removed; 2) the addition of a requirement that mediation take place before a construction defect action can be filed; 3) heightened requirements that an association board provide advanced notice to all unit owners, together with a disclosure of projected costs, duration, and financial impact of the construction defect claim; 4) the addition of a requirement that the board obtain the written consent of a majority of the owners of units, and; 5) a requirement that prior to the purchase and sale of a property in a common interest community, the purchaser receive notice that binding arbitration may be required for certain disputes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at mcleroy@hhmrlaw.com

---

Can I Be Required to Mediate, Arbitrate or Litigate a California Construction Dispute in Some Other State?

September 19, 2022 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
It is not uncommon in the construction industry for an out-of-state general contractor to include a provision in a subcontract requiring a California subcontractor to resolve disputes outside the state of California, even though the work is to be performed within California. Fortunately, most California subcontractors are immune from this tactic. California law generally prohibits clauses requiring subcontractors to travel outside California to resolve construction disputes. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.42, [CCP 410.42 Link] renders “void and unenforceable,” any provision in a contract that “purports to require any dispute to be litigated, arbitrated, or otherwise determined outside this state,” so long as the contract is “between the contractor and a subcontractor with principal offices in the state, for the construction of a public or private work of improvement in this state.” Similarly, this law voids any similar contractual term that might prevent the California subcontractor from commencing an action, obtaining a judgment, or resolving its dispute in the courts of California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Using Lien and Bond Claims to Secure Project Payments

March 01, 2021 — Jonathan Cheatham - Construction Executive
While suing in court for payment on a construction project is nothing new, the very notion of non-payment tends evokes images of hard-working contractors and subcontractors, working with tight margins, owed payment for services rendered and materials. Fortunately, for general contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry, there are better remedies for securing payment on a project before it becomes a bigger issue. Construction projects, especially large public ones, usually include a dizzying array of general contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors, sometimes numbering more than a hundred entities. The inter-connected groups of companies working toward the goal of project completion require competent construction management in order to stay on time and on budget for completion. One of the project owner’s key tools used to ensure the process runs smoothly is the use of payment bonds and surety bonds. Payment Bonds Payment bonds ensure that contractors and subcontractors get paid for work performed in accordance with contract conditions. Disputes can occur before, during and even after the completion of work. Injunctive lawsuits, which contemplate the stoppage of work, would be detrimental to completing a public or private construction project of substantial size. Rather than having such minor disputes derail the entire project, the aggrieved party’s remedy is to file a claim against the payment bond, which offers a solution designed to keep the issue separate from the project’s completion. The payment bond also allows the project owner to transfer risk. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Cheatham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of anti-SLAPP Motion in Dispute Over Construction of Church Facilities

March 27, 2023 — Garrett A. Smee & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On February 28, 2023, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, issued an opinion in Billauer v. Escobar-Eck (D079835), affirming the trial court’s denial of an anti-SLAPP motion stemming from a public debate over a Church construction project. The Appellant (Billauer) ran several social media sites as a “neighborhood activist.” The Respondent (Escobar-Eck) ran a land use and strategic planning firm in San Diego. The “All People’s Church” had hired Escobar-Eck’s company in 2019 to obtain City approval for a Church campus. During a Zoom presentation by Escobar-Eck to a Church planning group on November 11, 2020, Billauer, as a participant in the meeting sent a chat to Escobar-Eck stating: “I’m going to make sure you get sent back to where you came from.” Over the span of the next six months, from November 11, 2020 to April 8, 2021, Billauer continued the onslaught through a series of five posts on Instagram and Facebook, attacking Escobar-Eck. On December 10, 2020, Escobar-Eck fired back with a Twitter post to Billauer’s employer, Wells Fargo, labeling Billauer as a cyberbullying racist. Reprinted courtesy of Garrett A. Smee, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Smee may be contacted at gsmee@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

March 16, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

A recent post to the Markusson, Green, Jarvis Blog reports on an important appeals decision which promises to impact construction defect litigation in Colorado.



The post provides analysis on the recovery of inconvenience damages. The focus of the piece is centered on Hildebrand v. New Vista Homes II, LLC, 08CA2645, 2010 WL 4492356 (Colo. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2010), wherein it was held that " the plain language of Construction Defect Action Reform Act permits recovery of damages for inconvenience, and that the trial court did not err by allowing inconvenience damages to go to the jury".



According to the MGJ Blog "The Hildebrand decision is important because it provides Construction Defect Plaintiffs with a foothold for collecting emotional damages. While several questions of law remain as to who or under exactly what circumstances a Plaintiff may recover these types of damages, the Hildebrand case has clearly set forth that emotional damages may be considered as part of actual damages pursuant to CDARA."



Read Full Story...

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

---

Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Repair work is underway on the Palladium concert hall in Carmel, Indiana, a suburb of Indianapolis, a contractor for the project says that the repairs will destroy evidence that they need to defect against additional construction defect allegations. Work stopped in 2009 for three months of repairs after problems were found in the steel roof supports. Steel Supply & Engineering Co. has claimed that the column failures are due to errors in the design. They say that if the repair work continues, it “would result in the spoliation of evidence, and will irreparably harm the defendants, and ultimately adversely affect their ability to protect their rights in the action.” They have asked the court to bring repairs to a stop until they are able to inspect the steel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---