SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

“To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

April 05, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In California, it is well-established that the extent of a party’s obligation under an indemnity agreement is an issue of contractual interpretation, and it is therefore the intent of the parties that should control. What is the parties’ intent, then, when a subcontractor (indemnitor) agrees to indemnify the general contractor (indemnitee) “except to the extent the claims arise out of the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct”? Does this mean the general contractor is barred entirely from recovering any indemnity if its active negligence contributed to the injury? Not according to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, which recently held that an actively negligent general contractor may still recover indemnity for the portion of liability attributable to the fault of others. Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc., No. A147313, 2017 WL 1179391, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017). In Oltmans Construction, an employee of O’Donnell Plastering, Inc. (“O’Donnell”), a sub-subcontractor of Bayside Interiors, Inc. (“Bayside”), which was a subcontractor to Oltmans Construction Company (“Oltmans”), sustained injuries when he fell through a skylight opening in the roof of a building under construction. The employee filed suit against Bayside, Oltmans, and the building’s owner, arguing Oltmans negligently cut and left unsecured the skylight opening. Oltmans subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint against Bayside and O’Donnell, contending it was entitled to indemnification under the governing agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Risk Management for Condominium Conversions

July 31, 2013 — David McLain, Higgings, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
One of the bright spots in the Colorado construction industry over the last few years has been the construction of for-rent apartments. It seems as though apartments are going up everywhere you look along the Front Range. As market forces change, it will be interesting to see whether these units will remain apartments or whether they will be converted into for-sale condominiums or townhouses. One of the risk management strategies we have recently discussed with our general contractor clients who have been asked to build apartments is to ensure that the project remains a for-rent apartment project through the applicable statute of repose, conservatively assumed to be eight years. Unfortunately this is not always feasible, usually because the owner and/or lender are not interested in encumbering the property for such a long period of time, and want to retain the ability to convert the project if and when market forces allow, even if that is before the running of the statute of repose. The purpose of this article is to discuss the insurance and risk management ramifications of converting a project too early. I have recently heard from several sources in the insurance industry that there are owners and contractors who are currently building apartments with the idea that they will be held as apartments for two to three years and then converted to for-sale condominiums or townhomes. While this strategy may have great appeal from a business point of view, it has a very serious risk management downside. Apparently, these owners and contractors are operating under the mistaken belief that they will have no liability exposure to the ultimate purchasers of the converted units or to the homeowners association for construction defects. This is an incorrect belief. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
David M. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

July 10, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On June 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided the case of Orchard Hill Building Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the District Court granting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Orchard Hill Building Company’s (Orchard) complaint that the Corps’ jurisdictional determination erroneously found that the waters at issue were “jurisdictional waters” under the Clean Water Act (CWA) subject to the Corps’ jurisdiction. Acknowledging that the Corps and EPA had promulgated a new rule re-defining “waters of the United States” in 2015—which is now being challenged in the courts—the Court of Appeals noted that this case is controlled by the pre-2015 definition of “waters of the United States.” The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Corps, directing it to determine if there was a significant nexus, as required. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

January 26, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co. (No. F069953, filed 12/11/15) a California appeals court held that policy wording that the collapse coverage for damage “caused only by” certain specified perils did not mean “solely” by those specified perils, but that coverage may nonetheless apply even if excluded causes contributed to the loss, under the Insurance Code section 530 and the efficient proximate cause rule. In Vardanyan, the insured made a claim for water damage from unknown origin to a rental house. An engineer concluded that the various sources of moisture—roof leaks, gutters and downspouts that did not channel the water away from the house, a faucet spraying water on the exterior of the house, leaking toilet and bathtub, and humidity—contributed to the damage to the house, along with poor construction, termite damage and decay. The insurer denied coverage citing multiple policy exclusions, including damage caused by seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system; deterioration; mold, wet or dry rot; settling of foundations, walls or floors; earth movement; water damage; neglect; weather conditions; acts or decisions of any person; and faulty or defective design, workmanship, repair, construction, or maintenance. The insured retained a public adjuster who disagreed, in particular citing the policy’s “Other Coverage 9” coverage for collapse of a building or part of a building “caused only by one or more” of a list of perils, including hidden decay, hidden insect damage, and weight of contents, equipment, or people. 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

---

Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know

July 20, 2020 — Amy R. Patton & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into legislation the bipartisan bill titled the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (PPPFA). The PPPFA modifies the Paycheck Protection Program, which was first introduced under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The modifications provide borrowers more control over the use of funds and make it easier to obtain forgiveness. The following is a summary of the key changes. 1. Extended Maturity Date From 2 Years to 5 Years Under the CARES Act, the minimum maturity date for loan amounts after the forgiveness period was not defined. The Small Business Administration (SBA) then released an Interim Final Rule clarifying that the minimum maturity date was two years. The PPPFA has extended the term to five years: “The covered loan shall have a minimum maturity of 5 years and a maximum maturity of 10 years from the date on which the borrower applies for loan forgiveness under that section.” 2. Extension of Covered Period From Eight Weeks to a Maximum of 24 Weeks Under the CARES Act, the covered period of the loan (i.e., the time period in which you may spend the loan funds) was February 15, 2020 to June 30, 2020, an eight-week period. The PPPFA extended the covered period to 24 weeks from the origination date of the loan, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision

October 21, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
A new blog post from Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton discusses two recent decisions limiting the holding of Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 405 A.2d 788 (N.J. 1979), a New Jersey case that has generated decades of commentary and debate, in my own writing as well as that of many others (at least 1880 citations, according to the blog). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net

---

New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

May 13, 2014 — Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLP
New York’s “no-fault” legislation reflects a public policy designed to make the insurer of first-party benefits absorb the economic impact of loss without resort to reimbursement from its insured or, by subrogation, from the tortfeasor. Country Wide Ins. Co. v. Osathanugrah, 94 A.D.2d 513, 515 (N.Y. 1st Dept. 1983). The no-fault concept embodied in New York’s Insurance Law modifies the common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jamaica Water Supply Co., 83 A.D.2d 427, 431 (N.Y. 2nd Dept. 1981). “[F]irst party benefits are a form of compensation unknown at common law, resting on predicates independent of the fault or negligence of the injured party.” Id. at 431. The purpose of New York’s no-fault scheme is “to promote prompt resolution of injury claims, limit cost to consumers and alleviate unnecessary burdens on the courts.” Byrne v. Oester Trucking, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 386, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). New York’s no-fault scheme—contained in Article 51 of its Consolidated Laws (“Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations”)—requires owners of vehicles to carry insurance with $50,000 minimum limits which covers basic economic loss, i.e., first-party benefits, on account of personal injury arising from the use or operation of a motor vehicle. Basic economic loss includes, among other things: (1) medical expenses; (2) lost earnings up to $2,000 per month for three years; and (3) out-of-pocket expenses up to $25 per day for one year. N.Y. INS. LAW § 5102(a). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

November 15, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on the CGL policy's business risk exclusions. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. TL Spreader, LLC, (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2017). Helena Chemical Company contracted with its customer Wild Farms to sell and apply certain herbicides and pesticides to Wild Farms' 123 acre rice filed. Helena subcontracted the TL Spreader, LLC (TLS) to apply the chemicals to Wild Farm's rice field. The TLS employee failed to properly neutralize a chemical being used in the spray. TLS finished its work on May 6, 2014, completing all its work for Helena's contract with Wild Farms. Three days after completion of the spraying, the rice crop first began to exhibit physical damage in the form of abnormal stunting, lesions, yellowing and death. 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

---