Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Hawaii Federal District Court Again Rejects Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

January 13, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the District of Hawaii continued its longstanding pattern of finding no coverage for claims based upon construction defects. Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haw. Nut & Bolt, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174243 (D. Haw. Dec. 16, 2016). Safeway filed a complaint against Hawaii Nut & Bolt (HNB). The complaint involved issues pertaining to the construction of the roof deck at a Safeway store. HNB was a subcontractor hired to supply a coating system on the roof of the store to make it waterproof. The product was manufactured by VersaFlex. After the store opened, there were water leaks from the roof. This disrupted business operations and caused damage to Safeway's business and reputation. HNB tendered the claims to its CGL carrier, Fireman's Fund Insurance Corporation (FFIC). FFIC defended the underlying lawsuit for six years under a reservation of rights. 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

Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

July 02, 2018 — Amy R. Patton, Blake A. Dillion, & Eric C. Sohlgren - Payne & Fears
In a 5 to 4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court overruled a longstanding decision which required government employees who are represented by but do not belong to a union, to pay a fair share or agency fee to cover the union's costs for collective bargaining activities. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court found that requiring such fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment: "[n]either an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay." Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Blake A. Dillion and Eric C. Sohlgren Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Attorney-Client Privilege in the Age of Cyber Breaches

October 18, 2021 — Shaia Araghi - Newmeyer Dillion
Investigations and forensic reports relating to a cybersecurity breach may not always be protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Companies seeking such reports after a data breach must take caution to protect them from a possible waiver of privilege in the event of subsequent litigation relating to a data breach. The following recent cases highlight the potential waiver of privilege in light of the preparation of a forensic report.

In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 3470261 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020)

After a data breach occurred, Capital One retained a law firm that later entered into an agreement with Mandiant for various cyber-related services (including incident remediation), which required that Mandiant provide deliverables to the firm, rather than to Capitol One. In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 2731238, at *1 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020). Plaintiffs sought release of the report created by Mandiant (regarding the factors leading to the breach), arguing that it was prepared for business and regulatory purposes and therefore was not privileged, while Capital One argued that the report was privileged because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Ibid. The Court determined that Capital One did not carry its burden of establishing that the report was protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and ordered that Capital One produce the report. Id. at *7. In its reasoning, the Court stated that the fact that there is litigation does not, by itself, provide prepared materials with work-product protection. Ibid. The work-product protection applies when a party faces a claim following an event that may result in litigation, and the work product would not have been prepared in a substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation. Ibid.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shaia Araghi, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Araghi may be contacted at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com

Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

June 15, 2020 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is once again recognized by Chambers USA as a leading law firm in Pennsylvania for achievements and client service in the area of insurance law. In addition, four lawyers received individual honors – two for their work in insurance, one for his work in banking and finance and another for his work in commercial litigation. White and Williams is acknowledged for its renowned practice offering expert representation to insurers and reinsurers across an impressive range of areas including coverage, bad faith litigation and excess liability. The firm is recognized for its notable strength in transactional and regulatory matters, complemented by its adroit handling of complex alternative dispute resolution proceedings and is described as "reasoned and respectful." Chambers also acknowledged the firm's broad trial capabilities, including handling data privacy, professional liability and toxic tort coverage claims as well as its experience in substantial claims arising from bodily injury and wrongful death suits. White and Williams' cross-disciplinary team is also highlighted, characterized for "work[ing] well together and provid[ing] exceptional representation." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

New Case Alert: California Federal Court Allows Policy Stacking to Cover Continuous Injury

November 23, 2016 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
“Stacking” is a practice that is very favorable for policyholders, especially in environmental coverage cases involving extended pollution events. It allows a policyholder to combine the limits of multiple consecutive policies to cover continuous injury claims occurring over multiple policy periods. Without stacking, insurers can limit a policyholder’s recovery to a single policy limit. The Eastern District of California recently decided that a policyholder could stack the limits of six consecutive policies, where the occurrence was a continuous injury spanning all six policy years. Among other rulings, the court determined that the plain language of the policy under dispute did not prevent stacking. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Subcontractor Work with Resultant Damage is both an “Occurrence” and “Property Damage” under a Standard Form CGL Policy

September 01, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a client alert by the firm Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A), “In a recent significant decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that defective work of a subcontractor that causes consequential property damage is both an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage’ under the terms of a standard form commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy.” Patrick J. Greene, Jr., and Frank A. Hess of P&A wrote that the Cypress Point Condominium Assoc., Inc. v Adria Towers, LLC, 2016 N.J. Lexis 847 (Aug.4,2016) “decision is important in New Jersey and in other jurisdictions that had relied upon the influential New Jersey case, Weedo v. Stone–E–Brick, Inc., 81 N.J. 233 (1979), that had determined that such claims involved non-insured ‘business risks.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hurricane Damage Not Covered for Home Owner Not Named in Policy

March 20, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss because, although there was coverage for the property under the mortgagee's policy, the home owner was not a named or additional insured under the policy. Cart v. Great Am. Assur. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6207 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023). Plaintiffs' property was damage by Hurricanes Laura and Delta. Because Plaintiff failed to maintain homeowner's hazard insurance subject to the mortgage, Rushmore Management Services procured a force-placed lender policy on the property through Great American. Plaintiffs filed suit asserting breach contract claims. Great American moved to dismiss. 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

COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

April 20, 2020 — Karen Bennett, Jane Luxton, William Walsh & Amanda Tharpe - Lewis Brisbois
Earlier this week, a rumor made the rounds that a forthcoming Presidential Executive Order would impose a nationwide mandate that all employees work remotely. While the rumor proved baseless, it raised questions about manufacturers’ abilities to comply with environmental permit obligations in the event of a COVID-19 precipitated operational shutdown due to federal or state mandates or workforce depletion resulting from widespread illness. Previous emergencies offer some insights on what to expect as companies and their counsel assess environmental business risk. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, several bills were introduced in Congress that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waive or modify requirements, issue emergency permits, or expedite permits as needed to respond to disaster and recovery needs. In the end, no new legislation was enacted, because existing emergency powers under environmental statutes proved sufficient to allow for waiver of regulatory requirements or exercise of enforcement discretion. Key provisions include the following:

The Clean Water Act’s (CWA) affirmative defense for “upset” conditions. This provision excuses non-compliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations due to factors outside the permittee’s control. Criteria for establishing the defense include: 1) the upset occurred and the permittee can identify the cause, 2) the permitted facility was at the time being properly operated, 3) the permittee submitted notice of the upset (24 hour notice), and 4) the permittee complied with any remedial measures required under 40 C.F.R. §122.41(d).

Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith attorneys Karen Bennett, Jane Luxton, William Walsh and Amanda Tharpe Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. William may be contacted at William.Walsh@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Amanda may be contacted at Amanda.Tharpe@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES