SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Almost Nothing Is Impossible

October 30, 2018 — Brian N. Krulick - Smith Currie
In today’s ever-changing legal and political climate, contractors are being forced to deal with events and circumstances that seemed improbable just a short time ago. These changing circumstances have led some contractors to question whether they are required to continue performing in the face of uncertainty and, in many cases, potentially large losses. The doctrines of impossibility and impracticability, if proven, can serve as powerful defenses and excuse performance of a construction contract. However, contractors should exercise great caution before relying on these defenses as an excuse for nonperformance, as the consequences of stopping work without proper justification can be disastrous. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian N. Krulick, Smith Currie
Mr. Krulick may be contacted at bnkrulick@smithcurrie.com

---

Hurricane Handbook: A Policyholder's Guide to Handling Claims during Hurricane Season

October 11, 2021 — Tracy Alan Saxe, Kelly A. Johnson, Samantha M. Oliveira & R. G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
SDV's Natural Disaster Recovery Group presents the Hurricane Handbook: A Policyholder's Guide to Handling Claims during Hurricane Season. This handbook intends to be a practical guide on policyholder issues, both homeowners and business owners alike, when preparing for hurricane season and handling claims after a loss due to a hurricane. The handbook is a living document that will evolve over time, as our Natural Disaster Recovery Group members continue to contribute new and expansive content on the complex issues arising in this area. Remember to check back for additional information and updated content regarding the Hurricane Season Policyholder’s Handbook. I. Are You Adequately Insured for a Hurricane? Understanding the various types of coverage policyholders can purchase is vital to weathering the financial storm following a natural disaster. Reprinted courtesy of Tracy Alan Saxe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, Samantha M. Oliveira, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and R. G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Saxe may be contacted at TSaxe@sdvlaw.com Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com Ms. Oliveira may be contacted at SOliveira@sdvlaw.com Ms. Nelson may be contacted at RNelson@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements

January 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A disagreement over signage potentially blocking rooftop owner’s views has stalled Wrigley Field’s proposed $300 million renovation, reported the Chicago Tribune. However, a recently lawsuit filed between the two entities regarded allegedly false statements made by Marc Ganic, a Chicago sports business consultant, published in the Chicago Sun-Times: “In the story, Ganis is quoted as saying the rooftop clubs were ‘stealing’ the Cubs product for their own profit,” according to the Chicago Tribune. The rooftop owners claimed in the suit that “they have a contractual arrangement with the team that allows them to sell tickets to people who want bird’s-eye views of the game.” The Chicago Tribune attempted to contact Ganis for comment, but he “did not return several messages.” The rooftop owners and the Cubs entered into a “20-year agreement in 2004 in which the rooftop owners pay the Cubs 17 percent of the team's yearly profits in exchange for unobstructed views into the ballpark,” according to ESPN. “The Cubs dispute that notion, however, contending the unobstructed views were guaranteed through the landmarking of the bleachers not with the agreement they have with the rooftop owners.” Business president Crane Kenney explained to ESPN that the city council amended the landmarking rule for the field: “[The council has] now recognized the outfield is not a historic feature. And above a 10-foot level we can have signage. That was the big win last summer, among many. That's what the rooftops would contest.” According to ESPN the Cubs will not start the renovation project until they have an agreement with the rooftop owners “that includes a guarantee not to sue the Cubs for breach of contract, which would delay construction.” Read the full story at the Chicago Tribune... Read the full story at ESPN... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

July 19, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Judge Marilyn Kelly of the Michigan Supreme Court has remanded the case of Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr. Inc. (Mich., 2011) to the Court of Appeals, after determining that the court had improperly applied the statute of repose. She reversed their judgment, pending a new trial.



Ahrens Construction was a subcontractor, hired by Miller-Davis to build and install a natatorium room at a YMCA camp in Kalamazoo, Michigan. After its installation, the YMCA discovered a severe condensation problem, causing moisture to “rain” from the roof. The architect, testifying for Miller-Davis, alleged that the problems were due to improper installation by Ahrens. Ahrens claimed that the condensation problem was due to a design error.



When the roof was removed and reconstructed, the moisture problem ended. Ahrens argued that the alleged defects were caused by the removal. Further, in trial Ahrens raised the issue of the statute of repose. The court found in favor of Miller-Davis and did not address the statute of repose.



The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, determining that the statute of repose had barred the suit. This rendered the other issues moot.



The Michigan Supreme concluded that the issue at hand was “a suit for breach of contract,” and that the Michigan statute of repose is limited to tort actions. They remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the issues that had been mooted by the application of the statute of repose.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

December 20, 2012 — TRED EYERLY, INSURANCE LAW HAWAII
On a certified question from the Federal District Court, the Supreme Court of Kentucky decided that an anti-assignment provision in a policy is unenforceable.Wehr Constructors v. Paducah Div. Assur. Co. of Am., 2012 Ky. LEXIS 183 (Ky. Oct. 25, 2012). Before building an addition to its hospital, Murray Calloway County Hospital purchased a builder's risk policy from Assurance Company of America.The policy provided, "Your rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred without Assurance's written consent . . . ." The Hospital contracted with Wehr Constructors to install concrete subsurfaces and vinyl floors in order to expand the hospital. After installation, a portion of the floors and subsurface work was damaged. The Hospital submitted a claim to Assurance for $75,000, but the claim was denied. Wehr sued the Hospital to recover money for its work on the construction project. In settling the case, the Hospital assigned to Wehr any claim or rights the Hospital had against Assurance. 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

---

Study Finds Mansion Tax Reduced Sales in New York and New Jersey

May 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A study by two Columbia University economists demonstrated that “the extra 1% ‘mansion’ tax New York state and New Jersey impose on home sales above $1 million actually reduce[d] the number of total real estate transactions, in addition” it pushed “home sales that might have taken place for above $1 million to below that threshold,” Forbes reported. The “mansion” tax only occurs when the residential sale is above $1 million, “meaning a buyer who pays $999,999 for a house, condo or coop would owe no mansion tax.” The study showed a “dramatic” gap “in sales of homes for between $1 million and $1,040,000 (with more sales missing in that range than bunched just below $1 million).” The economists’ concluded that “the mansion tax causes an ‘unraveling’ effect, actually disrupting some sales of properties that would otherwise have taken place.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

January 06, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The Eighth Circuit determined a jury instruction regarding the applicability of the "all-risk" policy’s exclusion for "collapse" was inadequate. See KAAPA Ethanol, LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22158 (8th Cir. Nov. 3, 2011).

KAAPA had nine large, cylindrical, stainless steel tanks fabricated at its location. Soon after operations began in 2003, some of the tanks experienced unusual movement and began to shift. A geotechnical engineer found "silty clay" had been used for infill instead of compacted granular fill called for in engineering drawings. A year long plan to repair all nine tanks was implemented.

Affiliated’s "all-risk" policy excluded damage caused by faulty workmanship. It also excluded damage caused by settling or cracking. The settling exclusion went on to provide, "This exclusion will not apply to loss or damage resulting from collapse of: a building or structure; or material part of a building or structure." Affiliated denied coverage because of the faulty workmanship and settling exclusions.

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

---

New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

May 31, 2021 — Copernicus T. Gaza, Robert S. Nobel, Craig Rokuson, Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
The New York State Assembly is considering A07285, which creates a private right of action for bad faith “if the insurer unreasonably refuses to pay or unreasonably delays payment without substantial justification.” The bill was first introduced in 2013 but was reintroduced on May 3, 2021 and has received some recent attention. According to the bill, an insurer acts unreasonably when it (among other things):

1. Fails to provide the claimant with accurate information regarding policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue; or
2. Fails to effectuate in good faith a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim or portion of a claim and where the insurer failed to reasonably accord at least equal or more favorable consideration to its insured's interests as it did to its own interests, and thereby exposed the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits or caused other damage to a claimant; or
3. Fails to provide a timely written denial of a claimant's claim, or portion thereof, with a full and complete explanation of such denial, including references to specific policy provisions wherever possible; or
4. Fails to act in good faith by compelling such claimant to initiate a lawsuit to recover under the policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in such suit; or
5. Fails to timely provide, on request of the policy holder or the policy holder's representative, all reports or other documentation arising from the investigation of a claim; or
6. Refuses to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation prior to such refusal.

Reprinted courtesy of Copernicus T. Gaza, Traub Lieberman, Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman, Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman Mr. Gaza may be contacted at cgaza@tlsslaw.com Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---