Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Insured's Lack of Knowledge of Tenant's Growing Marijuana Means Coverage Afforded for Fire Loss

August 17, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer regarding a claim for fire loss. Mosley v. Pacific Sec. Ins, Co., 2020 Cal. App LEXIS (Cal. Ct. App, May 26, 2020). The Mosleys rented their property to Pedro Lopez. Six months later, the property was damaged by fire. Lopez had tapped a main power line into the attic to power his energy-intensive marijuana growing operation. The illegal power line caused the fire. Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (PSIC) insured the property under an HO-3 Standard Homeowners policy. Paragraph E of the policy provided,

The growing of plants; or
The manufacture, production, operation or processing of chemical, biological, animal or plant materials.

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

2017 California Employment Law Update

January 13, 2017 — Evelin Y. Bailey - California Construction Law Blog
Below are some of the new laws going into effect this year that affect the construction industry. Unless otherwise noted, the laws go into effect on January 1, 2017. Public Works and Prevailing Wages You can read more about the new laws—AB 326, AB 1926 and SB 954—relating to public works and prevailing wages in an earlier blog post. Employment Contracts Choice of Forum and Choice of Law. Under SB 1241, an employer cannot require an employee who primarily works and resides in California to agree to file a lawsuit or bring a claim in another state when the claim arises in California. This is usually referred to as the choice of forum clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Evelin Y. Bailey, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Ms. Bailey may be contacted at ebailey@wendel.com

New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

January 21, 2019 — Paul Briganti - White and Williams
On November 21, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co., et al., Index No. 2005-EG-7032 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2018). First, the court held that under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit. The court primarily relied on: (1) New York federal court decisions and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in In re Viking Pump, Inc., 148 A.3d 633 (Del. 2016) holding that injury continues from first exposure through death or the assertion of a claim; and (2) medical and scientific evidence that the plaintiffs had submitted in support of their motion. The court specifically declined to follow Continental Cas. v. Wausau, 60 A.D.3d 128 (1st Dep’t 2008) (Keasbey), in which the New York Appellate Division found a question of fact whether injury occurs from exposure to asbestos through manifestation and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. The Carrier court stated that Keasbey was distinguishable because it “involved operations coverage, a non-product claim, and thus the [Keasbey] Court required a more stringent proof of injury in fact than is necessary here, in a products case.” Carrier, op. at 8. The Carrier court was also dismissive of affidavits offered by the defendant-insurer’s medical experts, finding that the affidavits did not create an issue of fact. See Op. at 2-9. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White and Williams
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

July 30, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. 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

Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued

October 20, 2016 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Over the past few years, there has been a battle raging on in district courts and arbitration hearing rooms throughout Colorado regarding when a subcontractor’s work is to be deemed “substantially complete,” for purposes of triggering Colorado’s six-year statute of repose. C.R.S. § 13-80-104 states, in pertinent part:

Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section. * * * (2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.

C.R.S. § 13-80-104 (emphasis added). As the battle raged on at the trial court level, subcontractors and design professionals argued that their work should be deemed “substantially complete” when they finished their discrete scope of work within a project. Developers and general contractors, seeking to maintain third-party claims against the subcontractors and design professionals, typically argued either that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work should be deemed “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy on the project, or upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor or design professional worked. Trial court judges and arbitrators have been split on this issue, with perhaps a slight majority favoring one or the other approaches advocated by developers and general contractors, that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work is “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy in a project (the minority view) or upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor of design professional worked (the majority view). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Coping With The New Cap And Trade Law

January 04, 2023 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
On May 17, 2021, Governor Jay Inslee signed a new carbon pricing bill making Washington only the second in the nation to have such an extensive climate-change reduction policy (Senate Bill 5126). The Stated Purpose of the New Law: SB5126 creates a system to cap carbon pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and individual businesses are provided specific limits on emissions (“Cap”). Those businesses then have to purchase credits for allowed emissions. The businesses which emit fewer greenhouse gases than the credits allotted them can sell their credits to businesses that are not reducing emissions as quickly (“Trade”). The overall pool of carbon credits are to be gradually reduced by 2050 to hit a goal of net-zero emissions. This bill is colloquially known as the “Cap and Trade Law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

March 06, 2022 — Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Courts across the nation have struggled to determine whether insurance policies that provide coverage for “direct physical loss or damage” insure losses stemming from COVID-19. Many courts have been applying an overly stringent pleading standard, inappropriately granting insurers’ motions to dismiss as a result of the insureds’ purported failure to allege that COVID-19 caused damages covered by their policies or because certain exclusions supposedly barred coverage. However, two New Jersey state courts recently decided these issues in favor of the insureds in well-reasoned opinions that give proper deference to procedural pleading standards and substantive insurance coverage law. A. COVID-19 causes “direct physical loss or damage” In AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., the New Jersey Superior Court held that physical alteration to an insured’s property is not a prerequisite to coverage for losses due to COVID-19. The insured, Ocean Casino, sued multiple insurers for COVID-19 losses, alleging that the virus caused Ocean Casino to shut down and suffer a loss of use of its property. Looking at the language of the policies, the court explained that each policy’s insuring agreement substantially read the same:

“This policy insures against direct physical loss of, or damage caused by, a covered cause of loss to covered property, at an insured location [the casino] … subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated in this policy.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

Congratulations to Arezoo Jamshidi & Michael Parme Selected to the 2022 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars List

April 04, 2022 — Arezoo Jamshidi & Michael C. Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Congratulations to Arezoo Jamshidi and Michael Parme who were selected for the 2022 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. The 2022 San Diego Rising Stars list is an honor reserved for lawyers who exhibit excellence in practice. Only 2.5% of attorneys in San Diego receive this distinction. Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES