Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Loaded Boom of Burning Tower Crane Collapses in Manhattan, Injuring Six

August 07, 2023 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The boom of a tower crane, with its engine on fire, collapsed July 26 at a high-rise construction site in midtown Manhattan—hitting the face of the building across the street as it dropped its 16-ton load. City officials said they would investigate the mishap, which caused minor injuries to two firefighters and four others. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Iowa Tornado Flattens Homes, Businesses and Wind Turbines

June 17, 2024 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
Business owners and residents are picking up the pieces after a tornado tore through south-central Iowa May 21, devastating the town of Greenfield, about 60 miles southwest of Des Moines, by destroying homes and businesses, toppling MidAmerican Energy Co. wind turbines and damaging the Adair County Memorial Hospital. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

October 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Los Angeles Times has continued its series on the seismic safety of buildings in downtown Los Angeles. According to the article, Los Angeles only requires seismic retrofits of buildings if their purpose is being changed. One investor, Izak Shomof, bought a residential hotel and kept it as one to avoid retrofitting the building. He converted an office building to upscale residences and so the building was strengthened. His son, Eric Shomof, keeps an office in the unreinforced building. He said if more retrofitting were required, “you’d see a lot more vacant buildings down here,” describing the process as “not cheap.” Depending on whether or when a building has changed its use, the concrete buildings of downtown Los Angeles may or may not be protected against failure in an earthquake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

June 30, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Paslay v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (No. B265348, filed 6/27/16), a California appeals court found triable issues of fact regarding whether State Farm breached its contract in paying a water loss, but affirmed summary adjudication for the insurer on bad faith and elder abuse claims based on the genuine dispute doctrine. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Haight Ranked in 2018 U.S. News - Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms" List

November 02, 2017 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the 2018 U.S. News – Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms" list with five metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles

Tier 1 in Insurance Law
Tier 1 in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Tier 1 in Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Tier 2 in Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs
Tier 2 in Product Liability Litigation - Plaintiffs

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

Las Vegas Team Obtains Complete Dismissal of a Traumatic Brain Injury Claim

June 21, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Partner, Jeffrey W. Saab and Associate, Shanna B. Carter on their successful Motion to Dismiss! This personal injury claim arose from an incident whereby Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell in front of the client’s business and sustained a traumatic brain injury. Initially, a default was entered against the client, and BWB&O was retained to unwind the same, and then defend against the claim. However, during the initial investigation, Shanna uncovered a defect in the service of the Complaint which invalidated not only the default, but more importantly service of the Complaint itself. Working as a team, Shanna performed the research and writing, and Jeff argued the Motion to Dismiss which was granted dispensing of the entire claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage

March 14, 2018 — Alan Packer and Graham Mills - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Unfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense. In Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage. After the Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense. The key issue before the Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued. In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid. While Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs. Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later. Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com. Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com. ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review’s AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

My Employees Could Have COVID-19. What Now?

March 23, 2020 — Amy R. Patton, Leila S. Narvid, Matthew C. Lewis, Robert Tadashi Matsuishi & Sarah J. Odia - Payne & Fears
Updated Guidance as of March 19, 2020. You are concerned about potentially sick employees in the workplace. One employee is off work sick for a couple of days, and then wants to return to work. Another plans to return to work after a week of travel. Another appears to be sick at work. They are coughing, sneezing, and appear to be short of breath. You are concerned they may have COVID-19. What can you do? You're not the only one concerned -- your other employees are, too. Your public-facing employees want to wear masks to protect themselves. One employee tells you he doesn’t want to touch anything that others in the office have touched. What are your obligations to these employees? Below, we address questions relating to keeping employees safe from COVID-19 in the workplace without violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or employee privacy laws. Can I require an employee returning from days away from work due to illness to report the symptoms the employee was experiencing that kept him/her out of work? Short answer: yes, so long as the questions are limited to whether the employee has had flu-like symptoms. Though the ADA prohibits asking employees questions related to an employee disability, COVID-19 (like the seasonal flu) likely does not rise to the level of a disability, so asking an employee about flu-like (or COVID-19-like) symptoms is unlikely to elicit information related to a disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that an employer may ask if an employee is experiencing flu-like symptoms if the employee reports being ill during a pandemic. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Leila S. Narvid, Matthew C. Lewis, Robert Tadashi Matsuishi and Sarah J. Odia Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Ms. Narvid may be contacted at ln@paynefears.com Mr. Matthew may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Mr. Robert may be contacted at rtm@paynefears.com Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES