SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

November 02, 2020 — Hugh D. Hughes - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The Hartford’s so-called virus exclusion in its commercial property forms is getting a workout, and policyholders now have an argument that may help their cases move past the pleadings stage. A U.S. District Court in Florida has deemed the exclusion ambiguous and denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss.1 The exclusion applies to “presence, growth, proliferation, spread, or any activity of ’fungi’, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.”2 The Court held that the parties did not necessarily intend to exclude a pandemic. In Urogynecology, the plaintiff sought coverage for the loss of the usefulness and functionality of its business location due to the Florida Governor’s shutdown order. The policy contained a 'fungi', wet rot, dry rot, bacteria, or virus” exclusion.3 The carrier moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff argued that the exclusion only applied if COVID-19 was present on-site, which was not the case. The Court addressed none of the issues regarding direct physical loss and instead decided the motion on the fungi exclusion. The Court held the exclusion ambiguous because the exclusion of virus “does not logically align with the grouping of the virus exclusion with other pollutants such that the Policy necessarily anticipated and intended to deny coverage for these kinds of business losses.”5 In addition, the Court stated that pollution case law was not on point because “none of the cases dealt with the unique circumstances of the effect COVID-19 has had on our society – a distinction this Court considers significant.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at hdh@sdvlaw.com

---

Ahlers Distinguished As Top Super Lawyer In Washington And Nine Firm Members Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars

August 10, 2020 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Blog
ACS is very honored and pleased to announce nine members of our firm were awarded the distinction of top attorneys in Washington. Our blog articles usually cover Construction Legal News, but we feel this is a newsworthy accolade to be shared with friends and clients. To become candidates to receiving the Super Lawyer nomination, lawyers are nominated by a peer or identified by research. After completing this first step in the process, Super Lawyer’s research department analyzes 12 indicators, such as experience, honors/awards, verdicts/settlements and others. As for the third step, there is a peer evaluation by practice area. Finally, for step four, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories. In other words, solo and small firm lawyers are compared only with other solo and small firm lawyers, and large firm lawyers are compared with other large firm lawyers. The process is very selective and only 5 percent of the total lawyers in Washington are nominated as Super Lawyers. John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, was recognized as the Top Lawyer out of all Washington lawyers in the State. Mr. Ahlers stated that “It was humbling to receive this distinction, particularly considering the many talented Super Lawyers in the State and I am a ‘construction lawyer’ to boot! I am grateful for the confidence my many colleagues in the bar have in me, by honoring me with their vote”. Founding partner Paul R. Cressman Jr. and partner Brett M. Hill were both recognized as one of the 100-Best Lawyers in the State. Four other firm members are also recognized as Super Lawyers: Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen, Lawrence S. Glosser and Ryan W. Sternoff. Two other firm members, partner Lindsay (Taft) Watkins and associate Scott D. MacDonald are also recognized as Super Lawyer Rising Stars, which recognizes attorneys either 40 years old or younger, or in practice 10 years or less. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

---

Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
“Right to repair” statutes don’t only affect general contractors, but everyone involved in the building of a home, down to those who supply materials, warns Paul Gary in a post on Window & Door. He notes that “if you sell your window or door products in one of the growing number of states with a ‘Notice and Opportunity to Cure’ or ‘Right to Repair’ statute, you need a plan in the event you receive a defect notice relating to your product.” A supplier that receives a statement that a defect exists should, according to Mr. Gary, carefully document not only when the notice was received, but when it was sent, according to postmark, and whether the sender complied with all the regulations. From there, the supplier should determine if there were previous, informal complaints. Finally, determine sales information. At this point, the supplier has the information its insurer will require. His next caution is that in what follows, other may “seek defense and indemnity from you.” And while you may point out problems with the notice,” he counsels that “if you confirm there is an issue with your product, don’t be afraid to make a fair proposal for repair.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

November 09, 2020 — Andres Avila & Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
On September 15, 2020, in a matter entitled The Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch & Others1, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, the equivalent of a trial court in the U.S., issued a ruling on a COVID-19 business interruption insurance case (the “Judgment”). Significantly, the Court sided with policyholders on most key coverage issues under specific non-damage business interruption insurance coverage forms. U.S. policyholders should review whether any of their policies issued by U.K.-based carriers, which may be subject to English law and have the forms discussed below, are impacted by this favorable decision. The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the U.K. financial regulatory body, brought the case to establish liability under 21 lead representative sample policy wordings from eight insurer defendants. The case was filed on an expedited basis on June 9, 2020 under the Financial Market Test Case Scheme, which is used for claims of general importance that require authoritative court guidance. Although the Judgment is legally binding only on the carriers who were parties to the action, the FCA estimates the case could affect 700 types of policies across 60 different insurers, and 370,000 small to medium-sized enterprises policyholders (“SME”) in the U.K. While the Judgment may be appealed, it is expected to incentivize insurers to settle their claims before the outcome of an appeal is known. Reprinted courtesy of Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Avila may be contacted at AAvila@sdvlaw.com Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

March 19, 2014 — David J. Byassee - Ulich & Terry LLP
The California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair. Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case. But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy. The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes. Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com. Published courtesy of David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

October 02, 2015 — David A. Harris & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. (“Vita Planning”), the First Appellate District held California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 410.42 (“Section 410.42”) which prohibits an out-of-state contractor from requiring a California subcontractor to litigate disputes in a state other than California, applies not only to traditional “contractors” and “subcontractors” but also to design professionals and architects. In Vita Planning, a dispute arose when HKS, a Texas based architectural firm, refused to pay Vita Planning and Architecture (“Vita”), a landscape design firm, for work on a luxury hotel in Mammoth Lakes, California (“Project”). HKS contended it was not required to pay Vita until it was paid by the owner of the Project, and any claims regarding the work needed to be filed in Texas pursuant to a forum selection clause contained in a Prime Contract between HKS and the Owner. The forum clause was “incorporated by reference” into an unsigned “standard form” agreement between HKS and Vita. Despite the forum clause, Vita filed a Complaint against HKS in Marin County Superior Court. Reprinted courtesy of Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

September 03, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to an article in JD Supra Business Advisor (written by Mark S. DePillis, Carl G. Roberts, Benjamin M. Schmidt, and Matthew White of Ballard Spahr LLP), “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a builder’s implied warranty of habitability extends only to the initial buyer of a home, and not to subsequent purchasers.” This reversed an earlier ruling in Conway v. The Cutler Group, Inc. “that created more expansive liability for home builders.” DePillis, Roberts, Schmidt, and White suggested that “builders should monitor possible future legislation addressing the public policy issues that the Supreme Court identified as falling squarely within the legislature’s domain.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

July 05, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly

The insured homeowners were unsuccessful in arguing around the policy's exclusions when seeking coverage for damage caused by Chinese drywall. Ross v. C. Adams. Constr. & Design, L.L.C., 2011 La. App. LEXIS 769 (La. Ct. App. June 14, 2011).



Before the insureds purchased and moved into their home, it was renovated. After moving in, the insures discovered foreign gypsum drywall, or Chinese drywall. The insureds submitted a claim to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. In an investigation, the insurer confirmed the presence of Chinese drywall and damage to the metal surfaces caused by corrosion. Louisiana Citizens refused coverage and the insureds sued. The trial court denied the insured's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Louisiana Citizens.



The court of appeal affirmed. Initially, the court determined the insureds sustained a direct physical loss. The inherent qualities of the Chinese drywall created a physical loss to the home and required that the drywall be removed and replaced.



Four exclusions, however, barred coverage. First, damages due to faulty or defective materials were excluded from coverage. The Chinese drywall emitted high levels of sulfuric gas which caused the damage to the insured's plumbing, electrical wiring and metal components.



Read the full story…

 

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---