SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Appraisers May Determine Causation

January 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a case of first impression, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that an appraisal may determine issues of causation. North Glenn Homeowners Association v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 854 N.W. 2d 67 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). On July 15, 2009, North Glenn Homeowners Association submitted a claim to State Farm for hail damage on the roof. The claim was paid. North Glenn did not repair all of the damage, instead deciding to use some of the money to make other repairs to the property. 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

---

Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

March 09, 2020 — Mark T. Caloyer & Joelle Nelson - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
On February 19, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a long awaited opinion in the matter of Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., No. 26 EAP 2018, No. 27 EAP 2018 (Pa. 2020). The Court’s opinion is a must-read for anyone involved in asbestos litigation in Pennsylvania. In Roverano, the Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 7102) does not preempt Pennsylvania common law favoring per capita apportionment of liability to strict liability defendants. In addition, the Court ruled that bankruptcy trusts, that are either joined as third-party defendants or that have entered into a release with the plaintiff, may be included on the verdict sheet for purposes of liability. In this case, Mr. Roverano sued 30 defendants in strict liability and Defendant Crane filed a joinder complaint against Johns-Manville Personal Injury Trust. The case proceeded to trial against eight defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. At trial, some of the defendants filed motions in limine seeking a ruling that the Fair Share Act applied to asbestos cases. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that asbestos exposure cannot be quantified, and held that that it would apportion liability on a per capita basis consistent with the Court’s opinion in Baker v. AC&S, 755 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2000). Reprinted courtesy of Mark T. Caloyer, Lewis Brisbois and Joelle Nelson, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Caloyer may be contacted at Mark.Caloyer@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Nelson may be contacted at Joelle.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

June 29, 2020 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
I had the pleasure of interviewing Turner Burton, President of Hoar Construction. We discussed waste in construction and how his company is on a mission to eliminate it. Can you say a few words about yourself and your company? I grew up around construction and this company, hearing about the business from both my grandfather and my father. I started working on job sites in high school forming concrete, continued working on projects throughout college, and since graduating from college, I’ve taken on different roles in the company to ensure I understand all aspects of the business. Hoar Construction was founded 80 years ago, and throughout our history, we’ve been committed to learning from every project to improve our processes and deliver the best building experience possible for our clients and partners. But it’s the relentless pursuit of improvement that really sets us apart as builders – to always strive to be the best and do the right thing for our customers and partners. There’s something to be said for setting a goal that you’ll always be working toward. It fosters hard work, collaboration, and productive effort. If we’re always working to find a better way, then we will always be improving. That effort drives better results for our owners and everyone we work with. Essentially, we’re always working toward something. Always improving. Always in process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

March 05, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hathaway Development Co., Inc., No. S10G0521 (Ga. March 7, 2011), insured plumbing subcontractor Whisnant was sued by general contractor Hathaway seeking damages for costs incurred by Hathaway in repairing damage to property other than Whisnant’s plumbing work resulting from Whisnant’s negligently performed plumbing work on three separate projects. On one project, Whisnant installed a pipe smaller

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

September 03, 2019 — Michael Francis Lenhardt & Burks A. Smith, III - Traub Lieberman
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman Partners Michael Lenhardt and Burks Smith won a Directed Verdict at trial in a dispute over Sinkhole Loss coverage in Broward County Circuit Court. The lawsuit arose out of a claim for Breach of Contract involving an alleged “failed repair” of a 2005 sinkhole at the insureds’ property. The Plaintiffs argued that their Policy Limits did not apply because the carrier allegedly undertook the subsurface repairs, relying on Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., 920 So.2d 832 (Fla. 4thDCA 2006). The Plaintiffs asserted that because the insurance company allegedly hired the below ground repair company, a “new contract” was formed, and the Plaintiffs should be entitled to limitless repairs to their home, notwithstanding the Policy Limits. This argument obviously presented the carrier with very significant exposure. Attorneys Lenhardt and Smith provided a vigorous defense for the insurance company at trial, during which they presented the jury with evidence that the carrier did not, in fact, hire the subsurface repair company. They further established to the jury that the insureds actually signed a contract with the repair company directly, and that the defendant did not invoke the Our Option repair clause of the Policy. After the Plaintiffs rested their case, Mr. Lenhardt and Mr. Smith moved the Court for entry of a directed verdict. The defense argued to the Court that the Plaintiffs could not prove their case to the jury based upon the facts presented as a matter of law, thus entitling the insurance company to a defense verdict. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Francis Lenhardt, Traub Lieberman and Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman Mr. Lenhardt may be contacted at mlenhardt@tlsslaw.com Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Willowbrook, a condominium complex in Lakewood Ranch, Florida has had problems with water intrusion. Now the builder is having problems with some of the residents. National home builder KB Homes is alleging that a pair of Willowbrook home owners who created a web site about their problems have violated federal cybersquatting laws, as the web site names they have registered are close to that KB Homes. The suit alleges that Andrew Smith and Daniel Koehler hope to either get KB Homes to purchase the web site or to buy back their homes. The lawsuit also alleges that three other individuals, William Crismon, Patrick McGettigan, and Armando Oyola-Delgado, conspired to intercept e-mails between KB Home and Dueall Construction. KB Homes claims that the three gained access to a WiFi hotspot used by Dueall. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

July 15, 2015 — Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
The increased migration from suburbs to metropolitan areas has accompanied an increase in high-rise construction, including the development of high-rise condominium buildings. The resulting metamorphosis of urban skylines, such as seen from Maryland’s Baltimore harbor, has also brought with it many complex construction law and construction litigation issues. Our law firm’s Maryland condominium construction law practice is increasingly called upon to resolve disputes involving high-rise condominium construction design defects between condominium associations, developers, contractors, builders, and design professionals arising out of the construction of high-rise buildings. A condominium building is typically considered to be a high-rise when it is approximately seven or more stories above grade according to the National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code, which defines a high-rise as being 75 feet (23 meters) measured from the lowest level accessible to fire department vehicles up to the floor level of the highest occupiable story. High-rise buildings may be residential (e.g., condominiums or multifamily apartment buildings), commercial (e.g., commercial office or retail space), or mixed-use structures. A mixed-use high-rise development might contain retail space, office space, a parking garage, apartments, and condominiums, each owned or maintained by separate entities and each sharing common expenses for the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

---

The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest

November 16, 2020 — Eric B. Hermanson & Konrad R. Krebs - White and Williams
It is an outcome few people expected. Back in August, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) refused plaintiffs’ requests to set up a single industry-wide multi-district litigation, which would have consolidated — in a single massive proceeding — all federal lawsuits seeking COVID-related business interruption coverage from insurers. The Panel acknowledged common legal issues, and potential benefits of coordinated management, but it balanced those benefits against the numerous factual differences between policies, carriers, and insureds, and noted that “[t]hese differences will overwhelm any common factual questions.” Then, after lengthy argument, the Panel ordered further briefing as to whether separate, company-specific MDL proceedings might be appropriate against five specific insurance carriers: specifically, the five carriers against whom the largest numbers of federal claims were pending. By choosing these five carriers and not others for further argument, the Panel seemed to be suggesting a formula: the larger the carrier, and the greater the number of claims against it, the greater the potential benefit from coordinated management, and the stronger the plaintiffs’ case for pre-trial consolidation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric Hermanson, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com

---