Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

April 22, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Partial dismissal of the insured's complaint seeking consequential damages for the insurer's bad faith was granted by the court. Bryant v. General Cas. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15369 (N.D. N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019). Bryant purchased from General Casualty Company of Wisconsin (GCCW) a commercial property and casualty policy to cover the insured premises. While the building was rented to a tenant who operated a restaurant, it sustained a collapse. GCCW refused to cover the loss. Bryant sued. In addition to the cost of repairing and replacing the damage to the property, Bryant alleged he was out the value of rental revenue from his tenant, which was forced to close the restaurant and relocated as a result of the unrepaired damage. 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

OSHA Penalties—What Happened with International Nutrition

April 15, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
For those of you in and around Omaha, you recall the tragic collapse of International Nutrition’s plant in early 2014, killing two workers and injuring several others. OSHA swept onto the scene and issued citations. Surprisingly, the penalties totaled only $120,000. While a large sum, one would think two deaths and a score of injuries would generate a larger fine. International Nutrition appealed the penalties and they have now been reduced to $78,000, about a 1/3 reduction. Below, I’ll set forth what happened. The Original Penalties International Nutrition was originally fined $120,650.00 for citations ranging from willful, serious, to other-than-serious. 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

Florida Enacts Property Insurance Overhaul for Benefit of Policyholders

July 05, 2023 — Laura Farrant & Bradley S. Fischer - Lewis Brisbois
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (June 13, 2023) – On June 1, 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law CS/SB 7052 (the Act), increasing consumer protection and insurer accountability in Florida. The newly enacted and amended statutes under CS/SB 7052 bolster policyholder protections and impose greater insurer oversight, including heightened penalties for insurer misdeeds in the state under a new law that will take effect on July 1, 2023 (this legal alert does not address all of the statutory revisions associated with the Act). As House Speaker Paul Renner noted, “The insurance legislation signed by Governor DeSantis today . . . not only empowers homeowners, but also cultivates market-driven competition, ultimately leading to lower costs.” Statutory Revisions Regarding Insurance Coverage The Act prohibits authorized insurers from cancelling or nonrenewing a property insurance policy for a residential property or dwelling that was damaged by any covered peril until the earlier of: (a) when the property has been repaired; or (b) one year after the insurer issues the final claim payment. The Act also expands current law prohibiting authorized insurers from cancelling or nonrenewing a residential property insurance policy until 90 days after repairs are completed for damages resulting from a hurricane or wind loss that is the subject of a state of emergency declared by the Governor and for which the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) has issued an emergency order. See Fla. Stat. §627.4133(2)(d)(1)(a) and (b) (Notice of cancellation, nonrenewal, or renewal premium). Reprinted courtesy of Laura Farrant, Lewis Brisbois and Bradley S. Fischer, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Farrant may be contacted at Laura.Farrant@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Fischer may be contacted at Bradley.Fischer@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

February 23, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Iowa law, the federal district court found that the insurer had to defend and indemnify construction defect claims for damage to property caused by the insured's subcontractors. Van Der Weide v. Cincinnati Ins., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4469 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 12, 2017). Van Der Weide contracted with Bouma & Company, Inc. to construct a house in 1996. Before construction began, Bouma purchased a CGL policy and a separate umbrella policy from Cincinnati, which were in effect from January 30, 1996 to January 30, 1999. Bouma used various subcontractors to build the home, including Elkato Masonry, which did the brick veneer and masonry work. The house was completed in February 1998 and Van Der Weide moved in during August 1998. 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

Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

January 12, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Construction projects are complex, multi-partied, multi-disciplinary endeavors, in which subcontracting all or a portion of the work to be performed is not uncommon. When subcontracting work, parties usually make it clear in their contracts that the party performing work is acting as an “independent contractor.” Here’s a fairly typical provision from the AIA A201 General Conditions:

The parties agree that the contractual relationship on Contractor to Owner is one solely of an independent contractor in all respects and that the Contract Documents do not in any way create a partnership, joint venture or any other relationship between Owner and Contractor other than the contractual relationship as specified in this Agreement.

These provisions are intended to shield the contracting party from claims that it is responsible for workers’ compensation premiums, retirement contributions, health care insurance, or other benefits provided for the benefit of employees of the company performing the work. Fair enough. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

August 17, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Earlier, we wrote about Davis v. Fresno United School District (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261, a Fifth District California Court of Appeals decision that sent shock waves through the school construction industry and raised questions regarding the use of California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery (Education Code sections 17400 et seq.). California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery provides an alternative project delivery method for public school districts than the usual design-bid-build method of project delivery. Under the lease-leaseback method of project delivery, a school district leases its property to a developer, who in turn builds a school facility on the property and leases it back to the school district. One of the benefits of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that school districts do not need to come up with construction funds to build school facilities since they pay for the construction over time through their lease payments to the developer. Critics, however, argue that because lease-leaseback projects do not need to be competitively bid, they are ripe for cronyism between developers and school districts. In Davis, a taxpayer successfully brought suit against the Fresno Unified School District challenging the propriety of a lease-leaseback project because the entirety of the District’s “lease payments” occurred while the project was being constructed and thus, successfully argued the taxpayer, there was no “true” lease of a facility since it was under construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

September 17, 2014 — Freeman Klopott – Bloomberg
A $511 million loan approved by a New York environmental agency to help fund the construction of a new $4 billion Tappan Zee Bridge was rejected almost entirely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The loan was intended to drive down borrowing costs for the replacement span being built across the Hudson River, with half of it being provided at zero interest. The agency, the Environmental Facilities Corp., approved the borrowing in June, saying it could use the funds from a program that targets clean-water projects. The EPA said today in a letter to state officials that building a new bridge doesn’t fit the intention of the program, which is backed by federal dollars. The agency, citing the U.S. Clean Water Act, said only $29.1 million could be allowed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Freeman Klopott, Bloomberg
Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net

California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

December 21, 2020 — Nicholas Korst - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent case in California, the Court of Appeals held that a surety who had issued a public works payment bond cannot rely on the “Pay-When-Paid” provision in the subcontract as a defense against the subcontractor’s claim against the payment bond.[1] The case was a public works project in Kern County, CA where the North Edwards Water District (the “District”) hired Clark Bros., Inc. (“Clark”) as the general contractor to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired subcontractor Crosno Construction (“Crosno”) to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. The subcontract included the following “pay-when-paid” provision, which provided a definition of “reasonable time”: If the Owner or other responsible party delays in making any payment to the Contractor from which payment to Subcontractor is made, Contractor and its sureties shall have a reasonable time to make payment. “Reasonable time” shall be determined according to the relevant circumstances, but in no event shall be less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against the Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment, including (but not limited to) mechanics lien remedies. (emphasis added). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nick Korst, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Korst may be contacted at nicholas.korst@acslawyers.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES