SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Attempt to Overrule Trial Court's Order to Produce Underwriting Manual Fails

April 25, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After being ordered by the trial court to produce its underwriting manual, the insurer's writ of certiorari to quash the order was denied by the Florida Court of Appeals. People's Trust Ins. Co. v. Foster, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 542 (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2022). The insured sued after his claim for damage caused by a water pipe in his home that leaked. In discovery, the insurer refused to produce its underwriting manual. Ruling on a motion to compel, the trial court ordered that the manual be produced. The insurer appealed. On appeal, the insurer argued its underwriting manual was categorically prohibited in breach of contract cases until and unless bad faith litigation commenced. Although courts had quashed the premature discovery of insurers' business practices, claims files, underwriting files, underwriting manuals, and the like in breach of contract actions, there was no categorical legal rule prohibiting discovery of underwriting manuals in breach of contract cases, especially if they were relevant. 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

---

Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.



First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”



The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”



Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”



The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Jean Nouvel’s NYC ‘Vision Machine’ Sued Over Construction Defects

December 10, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Telegraph reported that the developers of famed architect Jean Nouvel’s futuristic building are being sued over alleged window pane defects. The building contains a customized, “curving curtain wall of different sized panes of colorless glass—each set in a unique angle and torque,” according to Nouvel’s firm. However, some residents reported “wind whistling through the panes of glass, and water seeping in.” Furthermore, “[t]he draft is so severe in some places that hydronic heating pipes have frozen and burst, according to court papers.” Attorney for the developer told the Telegraph, “Our clients will be vigorously defending this matter and we believe we will prevail in the case.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Thank You!

February 28, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
I would like to thank the Construction Law Subsection of the Los Angeles County Bar Association for awarding me today (on 2/22/22 nonetheless) the 2022 James Acret Award for Outstanding Achievement in Construction Law Legal Writing. The nominating committee of the subsection includes a veritable Who’s Who of construction law attorneys including Donna Kirkner (Chair), Michael J. Bayard, Theresa C. Tate, Aaron J. Flores, Marilyn Klinger, Marion Hack, John D. Hanover, James C. Earle, L. Adam Winegard, Bernard S. Kamine and Ashley B. Jordan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Recent Florida Legislative Changes Shorten Both Statute of Limitation ("SOL") and Statute of Repose ("SOR") for Construction Defect Claims

March 19, 2024 — Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Florida Legislature and Governor DeSantis passed Senate Bill 360, effective April 13, 2023, which imposes significant changes to Florida’s statute of limitation (“SOL”) and statute of repose (“SOR”) periods prescribed in Florida Statute § 95.11. In short, the SOL and SOR periods will commence earlier and run earlier, which in effect shortens the time to bring a construction defect claim on both ends of the timeline.1 These changes will have positive impacts for general contractors who may save on insurance premiums with shorter completed operations tails. In other words, the timeframe within which contractors are at risk of being sued for construction-related errors is significantly reduced under the new version of the statute. Owners and developers, on the other hand, may feel that the increased pressure of uncovered construction defects necessitates the filing of lawsuits sooner than they might have otherwise filed. Collectively, all parties involved will certainly have to consider when and how to place their carriers on notice of claims or potential claims and, coupled with Florida’s sweeping changes to fee shifting statutes, insured parties may see more coverage denials which, in turn, could lead to more coverage actions.2 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com

---

Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

“(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations

August 19, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
This summer the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued proposed changes to the white-collar overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The white collar exemptions include the executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employee exemptions. The focus of the proposed regulations is to increase the salary level required to qualify for the exemption from $23,660 per year to $50,440 per year. The DOL predicts this will cause employers to change the exempt status of nearly 5 million workers who are currently exempt from overtime requirements to non-exempt status – requiring the payment of overtime. Current Regulations Under today’s regulations, the white collar exemption applies to employees who are paid at least $455 per week ($23,660 per year) and who customarily and regularly perform any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an executive, administrative or professional employee. Proposed Changes The most significant change is the sizeable increase in the minimum salary requirements for the exemptions. The proposed regulations more than double the current minimum salary of $455 per week to $921. This corresponds to the 40th percentile of weekly earnings projected for the first quarter of 2016, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The DOL also proposes annual adjustments to the minimum salary requirements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

The Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too Long

July 13, 2017 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
Jan Von Bergen at the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that work on Comcast’s new tower came to a halt this morning when striking members of Local 542 picketed the Comcast tower project and other union trades refused to cross the picket line. However, this show of solidarity (during the afternoon on the Friday before the Fourth of July) is unlikely to last past the long weekend. Why? Because any conduct by Local 542 aimed at encouraging a work stoppage by other union members is illegal and the companies that employ the sympathetic union members are in breach of contract if they do not work on Tuesday. Any actions by Local 542 to encourage members of a different trade unions to honor their picket line is a secondary boycott. The National Labor Relations Act prohibits secondary boycotts. Specifically, the NLRA prohibits a union for inducing employees of an employer not subject to a labor dispute to refuse to work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---