Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Business Risk Exclusions Bar Faulty Workmanship Claim

December 21, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The manufacturer of roofing and waterproofing systems was unsuccessful in securing coverage for alleged faulty workmanship due to the "your work" and "your product" exclusions. Siplast, Inc. v. Emplrs Mut. Cas. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176539 (N.D. Texas Sept. 25, 2020). Siplast was sued in New York by the Archdiocese for work done at Cardinal Spellman High School. The Archdiocese purchased a Siplast Roof System for the high school. Vema Enterprises installed the roof system. The roof system was covered by a guarantee. After completion, school officials noticed water damage in the ceiling tiles throughout the school. A consultant hired by the Archdiocese concluded that the leaks were caused by the workmanship and the materials that were compromising the entire roof membrane and system. Siplast determined the guarantee was not applicable. The Archdiocese informed Siplast that it would repair the roof and hold Siplast liable for the costs. Siplast gave notice of the claim to Employers, but coverage was denied. 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

Steven Cvitanovic to Present at NASBP Virtual Seminar

January 13, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Partner Steven Cvitanovic will speak at the National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP) Virtual Seminar on Tuesday, January 31 at 11:00 A.M. PST. The presentation will provide a brief overview of risks covered by traditional insurance products, and will then expand on significant exposures arising from a contractors operations/contracts that are not covered by traditional insurance. The session will provide examples of these non-traditional risks and strategies to mitigate them. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

January 12, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court, district of Hawaii, recently granted the insured's motion for remand. Catholic Foreign Mission Society of Am., Inc. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., Civ. No. 14-00420, Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Remand and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (D. Haw. Dec. 30, 2014) [Order here]. [Full disclosure - our office represents the insured, Maryknoll]. Maryknoll was sued in several lawsuits filed in Hawaii state court by victims of alleged sexual abuse occurring as far back as the 1950s by members of the clergy. Maryknoll was insured during these periods under liability policies issued by various carriers. The successor of Royal Globe Insurance Company, Arrowood Indemnity Company, agreed to defend some of the underlying lawsuits, but declined to defend others. The Travelers Companies, Inc. refused to defend. 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

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

June 29, 2017 — Nicole Rodolico, Esq. - Florida Construction Law News
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal (“Third District”) recently addressed the applicable statute of limitations for repairs under Section 95.11, Florida Statutes, including the issue of whether a repair constitutes an improvement to real property. In Companion Property & Casualty Group v. Built Tops Building Services, Inc., No. 3D16-2044, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6584 (Fla. 3d DCA May 10, 2017) (“Companion”), the Third District ruled that the trial court erred in finding that a subrogation action arising out of an alleged defective roof repair was time-barred because the statute of limitations had run. On February 8, 2016, Companion Property & Casualty Group (“Companion”) filed its complaint against a building services company, Built Tops Building Services, Inc. (“Built Tops”), for negligent repair of its insured’s roof. Companion alleged that the defective roof repair was performed on November 21, 2006. Companion further alleged that as a result of Built Tops’ work, the insured suffered water damage to the condominium building on February 9, 2012. Built Tops moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the applicable four-year statute of limitations had run on Companion’s claim, which Built Tops argued accrued on the date the repair was performed, November 21, 2006. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicole Rodolico, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Ms. Rodolico may be contacted at nicole.rodolico@csklegal.com

Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

May 10, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Lawsuits filed for recovery due to the faulty design and installation of doors and windows by homeowners across the country were found to allege multiple occurrences. Pella Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. 53631 (C.D. Iowa March 31, 2017). The underlying lawsuits alleged that Pella Corporation's windows were defectively designed, manufactured, or installed, and allowed water intrusion to buildings that resulted in third-party property damage or personal injury. Pella sued Liberty Mutual for declaratory judgment and filed a motion for partial summary judgment to determine how many occurrences the underlying cases presented. Pella sought a determination that each of the 15 underlying cases presented one "occurrence" as the term was defined in the CGL policies issued by Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual argued that only three or four occurrences were presented, relying on common fact patterns. Pella argued that there were separate and distinct causes of different injuries and damage and thus, each underlying case constituted a separate occurrence. Liberty Mutual, on the other hand, highlighted language within the definition of "occurrence," which stated that an "occurrence" included "continuous or repeated exposure to the same general harmful conditions." The "substantially the same general harmful conditions" language dictated that the scope of "occurrence" be understood to be broad, such that various instances of damage-causing water intrusion in different times and places constituted "substantially the same general harmful conditions." 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

Florida SB 2022-736: Construction Defect Claims

February 07, 2022 — Kelly A. Johnson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
*Special thank you to SDV Law Clerk Iliriana Fteja for contributing to this article. A new bill (SB 2022-736) was recently introduced to the Florida Senate. The proposed amendments to the statutes of limitations and repose could significantly impact construction defect claims by effectively creating additional exposure to contractors and insurance carriers. The proposed bill requires all actions founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property to be commenced within four years after the time to commence an action begins. Under the proposed amendment, the time to commence an action runs from the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion of the contract or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and their employer. This provision would effectively alter the time to commence an action to whichever triggering event is earliest instead of the latest triggering event per the previous statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com

Former Owner Not Liable for Defects Discovered After Sale

January 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In a “tentative decision” by Judge Steven Kleifield, Mark Van Peebles and a real estate company have been exonerated “of any liability in a lawsuit involving the sale of the actor’s Playa del Rey condominium, whose buyer says he discovered mold and a flooring defect,” according to the Patch. However, the judge “ordered the Waterfront Homeowners Association to pay Adel Bebawy $26,217 for repair work on the floor and the kitchen as well as civil penalties for not keeping him informed about board meetings.” The suit began in 2009 after Bebawy alleged “he discovered the floor had a severe slope and that there was significant mold in a bathroom,” reported the Patch. Kleifield, however, stated that the mold didn’t affect the condo’s value. Furthermore, Kleifield wrote that the sloping didn’t become an issue until Bebawy began installing a hardwood floor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

August 24, 2020 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc., 50 Cal.App.5th 216 (June 10, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of six subcontractors with respect to an equitable subrogation lawsuit filed by St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (“St. Paul”). St. Paul filed the lawsuit after defending Pulte Home Corp. (“Pulte”) against two construction defect lawsuits. The lawsuit contended that St. Paul was entitled to seek recovery of defense costs incurred on behalf of Pulte based on equitable subrogation. St. Paul relied on the indemnity clauses in each of the subcontracts, and argued that the subcontractors had breached their contracts with Pulte. As such, each subcontractor was obligated to pay an equitable share of the defense of the construction defect lawsuits relating to their work on the homes at issue in such lawsuits. The trial court ruled against St. Paul and held that the subcontractors’ failure to pay defense costs did not “cause” the homeowners’ claims, such that there was no causal connection supporting a claim for equitable subrogation. In addition, the trial court found that “equitable subrogation was an all-or-nothing claim, meaning it required a shifting of the entire amount of defense costs to the subcontractors on a joint and several basis and did not allow for an apportionment of costs among the defendant subcontractors.” In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal reasoned that St. Paul stood in the shoes of Pulte and was limited to pursuing recovery from the subcontractors based on the same rights as afforded to Pulte under the subcontracts. The Court of Appeal noted that St. Paul was seeking reimbursement of defense costs from the subcontractors based on the theory that they were contractually liable for paying an equitable share of defense costs. The Court of Appeal also noted that St. Paul’s claim was not premised on the contention that the subcontractors’ failure to pay defense costs caused the homeowners’ claims. Rather, St. Paul’s claim was premised on the subcontractors’ breach of their defense duty owed to Pulte under the indemnity clauses in their subcontracts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES