SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

August 19, 2015 — Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLP
In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Extrinsic Evidence, or Eight Corners? Texas Court Sheds Light on Determining the Duty to Defend

December 18, 2022 — Nathan A. Cazier - Payne & Fears
Last year, the Texas Supreme Court adopted a narrow exception to the state’s eight-corners rule, and allowed the consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine the duty to defend. The exception arguably raised more questions than it resolved. Last month, a Texas federal court answered some of these questions by rejecting an insurer’s attempt to introduce extrinsic evidence under the newly minted exception. Texas permits few, if any, deviations from its eight-corners rule, which determines an insurer’s duty to defend by only considering the operative pleading and the terms of the policy, without any regard to extrinsic evidence or facts. This protects policyholders by erring on the side of defending claims, even if coverage is questionable. In Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp., 640 S.W.3d 195, 199 (Tex. 2022) (“Monroe”), the Texas Supreme Court adopted an exception to the eight-corners rule, holding that extrinsic evidence may be considered when an “information gap” between the pleading and the policy makes it impossible to determine coverage, but only in limited scenarios where the extrinsic evidence (1) goes solely to an issue of coverage and does not overlap with the merits of liability, (2) does not contradict facts alleged in the pleading, and (3) conclusively establishes the coverage fact to be proved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears
Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com

---

How to Remove a Mechanics Lien from Your Property

March 21, 2022 — Hannah Kreuser - Porter Law Group
It sometimes happens that a contractor or material supplier records a mechanics lien on your property that becomes expired. Other times, the mechanics lien may be wrong, invalid and unenforceable for some reason, serving no legitimate purpose. The contractor or material supplier may be reasonable and release the mechanics lien once these issues are brought to its attention, but the contractor or material supplier may very well refuse to release the mechanics lien when requested. When this happens, what are your options? In California, there are various ways to bring this type of mechanics lien to a court’s attention in the hopes that the court will cause it to be released. Three of the more common methods are: (1) a petition under California Civil Code (“CCC”) § 8480; (2) a petition under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 765.010; or (3) a Lambert motion. This article will briefly discuss each of these methods. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law Group
Ms. Kreuser may be contacted at hkreuser@porterlaw.com

---

Patriarch Partners Decision Confirms Government Subpoenas May Constitute a “Claim” Under D&O Policy; Warns Policyholders to Think Broadly When Representing Facts and Circumstances to Insurers

January 08, 2019 — Michael S. Levine, Sergio F. Oehninger, & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Second Circuit recently confirmed in Patriarch Partners, LLC v. Axis Insurance Co. that a warranty letter accompanying the policyholder’s insurance application barred coverage for a lengthy SEC investigation, which ripened into a “Claim” prior to the policy’s inception date. The opinion left intact the lower court’s finding that the SEC subpoena constituted a “demand for non-monetary relief” and thus qualified as a “Claim” under the directors and officers (D&O) insurance policy. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Michael S. Levine, Sergio F. Oehninger and Joshua S. Paster Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

September 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

Remember Courthouse Square? I sure do. We have talked about the closed and evacuated LEED certified building a couple of times here on Builders Counsel. Well, it’s back in the news. This time building professionals are pointing fingers — but there is some talk about a fix. Still, its LEED certification remains.

If you read my past articles about Courthouse Square, you can get caught up on this mess. The short of it is that Salem, Oregon had the five-story government building and bus mall completed in 2000 for $34 Million. It was awarded LEED certification during the USGBC’s infancy. Last year, it became public that the building had significantly defective concrete and design. The Salem-Keizer Transit District worked with the City of Salem to shut the building down, and it has not been occupied since.

Last fall, Courthouse Square failed thorough forensic testing leading to a lengthy bout with a number of insurers.  The contractors and designers had been hauled into court, but the Transit District was able to settle with the architect and contractors. The only remaining party involved in the lawsuit appears to be the engineering firm, Century West Engineering. Most expert reports have pinned the responsibility for the poor design and materials on Century West’s shoulders.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

---

Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

June 11, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Lexology, Amy Kuo Alexander of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP analyzed recent decisions involving California’s Right to Repair Act, SB 800. According to Alexander, “SB 800, applies to all new residential construction sold after January 1, 2003” and “[i]t establishes a process to resolve certain construction defect claims prior to the filing of any lawsuit by a homeowner of new residential construction.” Alexander’s three main discussion points include “SB 800 is Not the Exclusive Remedy,” “Notice Requirements to Builder Under SB 800,” and “Parties Can Opt Out of SB 800 to Adopt Their Own Prelitigation Procedure So Long as the Terms Are Not Unconscionable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

May 04, 2020 — Stuart Rosen - Construction Executive
When negotiating a construction contract, a contractor and its advisers must first determine the areas of greatest concern. For example, if the contractor believes that the drawings that were prepared by the architect and other design professionals are deficient, the contractor may want to reference those deficiencies in the contract. The contractor should emphasize that it is not responsible for the drawings and to the extent the project schedule is extended to allow the parties to address such issues with the drawings, the contractor would be entitled to additional compensation. This article provides contractors with additional tips, with a broad focus on project delays, for their protection when negotiating and drafting construction contracts, and helps contractors understand the rationale for such tips to better prepare contractors in such negotiations. Contractor’s liability to the owner for delay damages It is imperative that the contract include a waiver of claims for consequential damages. AIA Document A201TM – 2017 includes such a waiver, which provides, in pertinent part, “The Contractor and Owner waive Claims against each other for consequential damages arising out of or relating to this Contract … This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party’s termination in accordance with Article 14.” Reprinted courtesy of Stuart Rosen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Rosen may be contacted at srosen@proskauer.com

---

Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

December 20, 2012 — TRED EYERLY, INSURANCE LAW HAWAII
In Pioneer Tower Owners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12 NY3d 302 (2009), the New York Court of Appeals found an "earth movement" exclusion was ambiguous when applied to an excavation. The court now considered whether a similar exclusion, expressly made applicable to "man made" movement of earth, eliminated the ambiguity when loss was created by excavation. Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2012). Plaintiff's building suffered cracks due to an excavation being conducted on the lot next door. A claim was submitted to Travelers, plaintiff's insurer. Travelers rejected the claim, relying on the earth movement exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---