SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New Case Alert: Oregon Supreme Court Prohibits Insurer’s Attempt to Relitigate Insured’s Liability

November 17, 2016 — Austin D. Moody – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
In a big win for policyholders, the Oregon Supreme Court recently ruled that that insurance companies are not allowed to relitigate the nature of damages awarded against their insureds during an underlying trial. In a coverage dispute stemming from a contractor’s faulty work on a condominium development, the insurer argued that at least a portion of the damages awarded represented the cost of repairing the contractor’s own work product. Coverage for such damages would be explicitly excluded by the policy. However, the Oregon Supreme Court found that the jury had been instructed that it could not award damages for the contractor’s own faulty workmanship. The court declined to give the insurer a chance to attempt to reclassify the nature of these damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Moody may be contacted at adm@sdvlaw.com

---

More on Fraud, Opinions and Contracts

February 06, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed the interaction between fraud and contracts on many occasions. Recently, I got to put my advice into action. I am counsel for the plaintiff in the matter of Environmental Staffing Acquisition Corp. v. Beamon, et. al. in the Portsmouth, VA Circuit Court and recently got a great opinion (.pdf) right on point that was recently featured in Virginia Lawyers Weekly. The basic facts are these. My client, Environmental Staffing (En-Staff) filed a Little Miller Act claim and a claim for breach of contract for Beamon’s failure to pay for temporary staffing that En-Staff provided it at the Jeffry Wilson housing project demolition in Portsmouth, VA. Beamon then counterclaimed for fraud and breach of contract claiming that some statements to the effect that a particular supervisor was qualified along with presentation of the individual’s resume constituted fraud. My client demurred to the two fraud counts (actual and constructive). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Florida's New Pre-Suit Notification Requirement: Retroactive or Prospective Application?

February 05, 2024 — Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Florida’s newly formed Sixth District Court of Appeal (“Sixth DCA”) recently certified conflict with Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal on the issue of retroactive application of the pre-suit notice requirement contained in Florida Statute §627.70152.1 Earlier this year, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) held that the pre-suit notice provision applies retroactively, meaning, it applies to all suits filed after July 1, 2021, regardless when the insurance policy was issued.2 The Sixth DCA, in Hughes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company,3 directly rejected the Fourth DCA’s interpretation and instead found a retroactive application of the pre-suit notice to be unconstitutional under Florida law. Prior to the Fourth DCA’s ruling, most trial courts had found no retroactive application for the pre-suit notice provision.4 In August 2021, shortly after Florida Statutes Section 627.70152 went into effect on July 1, 2021, Rebecca Hughes (“Hughes”) sued Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal Property”) for breach of contract after Universal Property denied her insurance claim. Hughes did not file a pre-suit notice under Section 627.70152. Universal Property moved to dismiss based on Hughes’ failure to file the pre-suit notice, arguing that the pre-suit notice requirement applies to all lawsuits filed after July 1, 2021, even if the claimant’s insurance policy was issued before the statute’s effective date. The trial court agreed with Universal Property and dismissed the lawsuit. 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

---

Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

September 17, 2014 — Jim Snyder, Jim Polson and Bradley Olson – Bloomberg
A study that found natural gas drilling polluted drinking water is fueling calls for stricter standards for well construction that could increase costs for energy companies. The analysis by academic researchers backed the oil and gas industry in one respect: the authors said “fracking” wasn’t to blame for harmful methane seeping into groundwater studied in Texas and Pennsylvania. Some environmentalists contend that by blasting underground rock with a mix of water, chemicals and sand, producers can force the gas into drinking water near the surface. The bigger concern, according to the analysis published yesterday by the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, are leaks in the steel-and-cement casings surrounding the well bore. They let gas escape before it gets to the surface, making water undrinkable and in some cases explosive. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg journalists Jim Snyder, Jim Polson and Bradley Olson Mr. Snyder may be contacted at jsnyder24@bloomberg.net; Mr. Polson may be contacted at jpolson@bloomberg.net; Mr. Olson may be contacted at bradleyolson@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

August 11, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Continental Western Ins. Co. v. Shay Construction, Inc., No. 10-cv-02126 (D. Col. July 28. 2011), general contractor Milender White subcontracted with insured Shay for framing work.   Shay in turn subcontracted some of its work to others.  When Shay?s subcontractors filed suit against Shay and Milender White seeking payment for their work, Milender White cross-claimed against Shay for breach of contract alleging that,Milender White notified Shay during construction that some of Shay?s work was defective and that when Shay repaired its defective work, it damaged work performed by others.  Shay’s CGL insurer Continental Western filed suit against Milender White and Shay seeking a judicial declaration of no coverage.  The federal district trial court granted Continental Western?s motion for summary judgment.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

August 06, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Non-Responsibility will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien. The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property. The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

December 30, 2019 — Scott Judy - Engineering News-Record
The National Transportation Safety Board’s Oct. 8 release of documents related to its FIU bridge collapse investigation raises questions but provides no definitive conclusions about why the partially built structure suddenly crashed to the ground on March 15, 2018, killing six. The last official word on the cause of the fatal collapse will have to await the agency’s final report, scheduled to be released on Oct. 22. Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

May 06, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
After WAY too long a hiatus, I am back with another in my series of “Construction Contract Basics” posts. In past posts, I’ve covered venue provisions, attorney fee provisions, and indemnity clauses. In this post, I’ll share a few thoughts (or “musings”) on the topic of so-called “no damages for delay” clauses. These clauses essentially state that a subcontractor’s only remedy for a delay caused by any factor beyond its control (including the fault of the general contractor), after proper notice to the owner or general contractor, is an extension of time to complete the work. These types of clauses generally make it impossible for a subcontractor (if found in a Subcontract) or Contractor (if found in a Prime Contract) that is delayed through no fault of its own to recover any damages relating to the expenses that are inevitably caused by such delays. Such expenses/damages could include additional supervisory time (including more high-dollar superintendent payments), acceleration costs, demobilization/mobilization costs, and other related expenses. These can add up to real money. Couple that with the inevitable liquidated damages or delay damages that will occur should a contractor or subcontractor cause any delay, and this becomes a very one-sided proposition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---