Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Property Casualty 360 listed four common misconceptions that many homeowners have about flood insurance. First myth on the list was, “I don’t have to worry about flooding because I don’t live near a body of water.” The author pointed out recent floods in desert areas such as Arizona and Nevada. “I don't qualify for government flood insurance because my property isn’t located in a flood plain,” made number two on the list. According to Property Casualty 360, “NFIP can provide coverage available to any homeowner, regardless of their location.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Governor Inslee’s Recent Vaccination Mandate Applies to Many Construction Contractors and their Workers

September 13, 2021 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
This month Governor Jay Inslee enacted COVID vaccination requirements that apply to certain construction contractors and their workers in Washington state. Inslee’s vaccine proclamation becomes effective October 18, 2021 and requires construction contractors, subcontractors, and their workers to be fully vaccinated to perform work onsite on certain covered projects. The following are types of covered projects where the vaccine mandate applies:

State agencies: All contractors working at projects for Washington state agencies (including WSDOT, DES, DNR, etc.) if the work is required to be performed in person and onsite, regardless of the frequency or whether other workers are present. The vaccine mandate applies to indoor and outdoor settings and there is no exemption even if social distancing requirements can be met.
Education/Higher Education/Child Care: All contractors performing work onsite for K-12, higher education (community colleges, technical colleges, and 4-year universities), child care and other facilities where students or persons receiving services are present. New and unoccupied projects are exempt but it does apply to public and private projects.
Medical facilities: All contractors performing work at a “healthcare setting” where patients receiving care are present. “Healthcare setting” is defined as any public or private setting that is primarily used for the delivery of in-person health care services to people. “Healthcare setting” includes portions of a multi-use facility, but only the areas that are primarily used for the delivery of health care, such as a pharmacy within a grocery store. Additional information is on the state’s Q&A page.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

December 09, 2019 — Anthony Hatzilabrou - Traub Lieberman
Recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that structural damages to the foundation of an insured’s home came within the earth movement exclusion in a homeowner’s policy, notwithstanding a provision in the policy which provided coverage for water damage resulting “from accidental discharge or overflow of water … from within … [p]lumbing, heating, air condition or household appliance.” In Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 264 So. 3d 737 (Miss. 2019), the appellee, Smith, filed a lawsuit against her homeowner's insurance company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”) for its refusal to pay for repairs to the foundation of Smith’s home. Smith alleged that the refusal to pay for repairs amounted to breach of contract and asserted claims for bad faith and tortious breach of contract. In response, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the policy’s earth-movement exclusion, which provided that Farm Bureau “did not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by…Earth Movement…[which] means…[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting... caused by or resulting from human or animal forces.” Smith filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that the earth-movement exclusion did not preclude coverage because her insurance policy also contained a clause expressly covering water damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Hatzilabrou, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Hatzilabrou may be contacted at thatzilabrou@tlsslaw.com

No Duty to Defend under Homeowner's Policy Where No Occurrence, No Property Damage

October 10, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the district of Hawaii granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment determining there was not duty to defend and no duty to indemnify the insured under a homeowner's policy. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rosfeld, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139123 (D. Haw. Aug. 4, 2022). The insured homeowners were sued in the underlying case for alleged failure to disclose poor flooding and plumbing issues during a December 2016 sale of the residence on Kauai. The disclosure statement purportedly made false representations and omitted material facts regarding various issues with the residence. The disclosure statement noted no sewage, drainage, water-related, or grading problems on the property, no damage to structures from flooding or leaks, no defects in the foundations or slabs, and no defects in the interior walls, baseboards or trim despite the insureds having experienced such issues during their ownership. The underlying complaint further alleged that the property had a history of drainage problems dating to 2006 and 2007, which the insureds knew about, or should have known about, when completing the disclosure statement. The insureds made a claim with Allstate in 2014 under their flood and homeowners policies for flooding or seepage into the basement of the house. 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

Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic

September 07, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters & Latosha M. Ellis - Hunton Andrews Kurth
As the effects of coronavirus continue, organizations and companies now are considering whether events in late 2020 and early 2021 can take place or need to be converted to virtual events. What insurance effects will those changes and cancellations have? Consideration of these important decisions requires a review of both event-cancellation insurance and a consideration of force majeure and other such issues. On the insurance front, years ago, many policyholders purchased event-cancellation insurance for events in 2020, 2021, and even as far out as 2024. Such policies, purchased before the middle of March 2020, generally contain explicit coverage “buy-backs” for losses from “communicable disease.” That is, the policyholders paid an extra, specifically identified premium to remove any exclusion for communicable disease from these policies. Typically, these policies do not use the word, “virus”, but rather use “communicable disease”; and exclude neither. Those policies typically cover a specified amount of net profit and include additional coverages for “Cost of Remedial Action”, “Future Marketing Expense”, etc., over and above that specified amount of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference

April 13, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I’ve yet to find reading through an insurance policy on anyone’s “bucket list.” But read them you should. Or have your attorney read through them (wink, wink). Because when you need to tender a claim there’s probably no more important document in the world. In Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. v. Financial Pacific Insurance Company, Inc., Case No. C078665 (November 29, 2016), a client whose attorney did read the policy, bested the insurer of a policy it issued. Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. In 2006 or 2007, Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. installed a fireplace at a single-family home located in Copperopolis, California. At the time, Tidwell had a general commercial liability policy issued by Financial Pacific Insurance Company, Inc. which expired in March 2010. 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

Eleventh Circuit Set to Hear Challenge to Florida Law Barring Foreign Citizens From Buying Real Property

April 22, 2024 — Michael Gnesin - Lewis Brisbois
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (April 2, 2024) - This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will hear a challenge to a recently-enacted Florida law, Senate Bill 264, which restricts foreign ownership or investment in Florida real property from specific countries and imposes a near ban on property purchases by Chinese, Russian and other foreign nationals. On July 1, 2023, Senate Bill 264 [codified under Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 692.201 to 692.205] took effect. The bill, titled “Interests of Foreign Countries,” prohibits Chinese nationals and nationals from other countries, including Russia, from buying real property unless they are American citizens or permanent residents. Prior to the new law's effective date, on May 22, 2023, four Chinese citizens who hold nonimmigrant visas and reside in Florida, along with a Florida-based real estate firm, sued the state of Florida in federal district court, alleging that the new law is unconstitutional and discriminatory, and that it violates the Fair Housing Act [Shen v. Simpson, Case No. 4:23-cv-208]. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Gnesin, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Gnesin may be contacted at Michael.Gnesin@lewisbrisbois.com

Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

April 20, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Minnesota Supreme Court considered a certified question from the the U.S. District Court regarding consideration of depreciating labor costs in determining the actual cash value of a loss. Wilcox v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2016 Min. LEXIS 50 (Minn. Feb. 10, 2016). The insureds' home was damaged by hail. State Farm provided a written estimate that calculated the actual cash value of the loss. To estimate the actual cash value of the damaged property, State Farm first calculated the replacement costs of individual items, such as roof flashing, siding, fascia, gutters, and window screens. Next, State Farm subtracted the pre-loss depreciation of some, but not all, individual items. For example, State Farm depreciated the cost of removing and replacing certain materials, such as siding. State Farm did not depreciate the cost of the new siding separately from the cost of the labor required to install the new siding on the home. Instead, State Farm calculated the removal and replacement of the siding as a single cost, then depreciated the removal-and-replacement cost as a whole. The cost of labor to repair or replace the damaged property was referred to by the court as "embedded labor costs." 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES