SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Lorelie S. Masters Nominated for Best in Insurance & Reinsurance for the Women in Business Law Awards 2021

November 08, 2021 — Adriana A. Perez & Andrea DeField - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
We are pleased to announce that Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP insurance coverage partner Lorelie S. Masters is one of only eight attorneys throughout the nation shortlisted for the Best in Insurance & Reinsurance category for the Women in Business Law Awards 2021. The award honors “the outstanding achievements of women in over thirty different practice areas in business law from across Americas. These are individuals who stand out as leaders amongst their peers and who have been instrumental to innovative approaches in their field.” A nationally recognized insurance coverage litigator, Ms. Masters has handled and tried cases in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country and in arbitrations in the United States and abroad. At issue in these cases, typically, have been millions of dollars of insurance coverage for product and environmental liability, like silicone gel breast implant and asbestos claims. She regularly advises clients on a wide range of liability coverages, including insurance for environmental, cyber, directors and officers, property damage, and other liabilities and loss. Most recently, she has advised clients in a variety of industries on COVID-19 losses under a wide variety of first-party property, business-interruption policies and “package policies,” and obtained multi-million dollar settlements under D&O, Side-A Only D&O and E&O policies. Reprinted courtesy of Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@HuntonAK.com Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

October 26, 2017 — Michael C. Zisa & Susan Elliot – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Two recent decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Federal Claims highlight that sureties and bond producers are not immune to the potentially severe consequences of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and related federal fraud statutes. In each case, the Court determined that sureties and bond producers can face potential liability under these fraud statutes for direct and indirect submission of false claims to the federal government Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Susan Elliott, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzisa@pecklaw.com Ms. Elliott may be contacted at selliott@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Legislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465

March 22, 2018 — John Castro - Construction Law Blog
Following the tragic Berkeley balcony collapse in 2015, the Legislature enacted California Senate Bill 465 which commissioned the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB” or “Board”) to perform a study regarding the efficacy of having contractors report settlements to the Board. In December 2017 the CSLB released their findings in a report. The ultimate conclusion of the report is to recommend to the Legislature that the ability of the CSLB to protect the public “would be enhanced by regulations requiring licensees to report judgments, arbitration awards, or settlement payments of construction defect claims for rental residential units.” Senator Jerry Hill authored SB465, and his office is presently now drafting legislation on settlement reporting based in part on this study. The most troubling concern about the study is transparency. The report references nine exhibits, all of which have been withheld from publication under purposes of confidentiality. Therefore, much of the CSLB’s study must be taken at face value because much of the data they rely on to formulate their conclusions cannot be independently verified. One of the factors that the CSLB undertook in its study was to determine criteria for when a settlement was “nuisance value,” and therefore less important for reporting purposes. The CSLB acknowledged there was no industry-wide definition for “nuisance value,” whether it be in the insurance industry, construction industry, or otherwise. Insurer survey respondents reached a general consensus on aspects of what can constitute a “nuisance value” settlement, including the amount of the settlement and the size of the case. However, the response rate to the insurer survey was only 3.3 percent. In general, the concern with using settlement amount and size of the case as indicative factors is the fact that a large settlement size, for instance, may still constitute a “nuisance value” settlement. One example would be a large settlement figure in a case involving hundreds of homes in multiple subdivisions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Castro, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP
Mr. Castro may be contacted at jcastro@grsm.com

---

Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The New York Times reports that a company paid to inspect concrete at major public works projects in New York has been charged with falsifying results. They had been hired by the city three years ago after their predecessor was found to have falsified results.



According to the Times, investigators found nothing legitimate in nearly three thousand reports. The owner and five employees of American Standard Testing and Consulting Laboratories have been indicted on twenty-nine counts, including charges under New York’s racketeering law. Prison terms could be up to twenty-five years.



Prior to the city’s contract with American Standard, the city employed a firm called Testwell. Testwell was found in 2008 to have falsified its test results.

Read the full story…

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

---

Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
The U.S. District Court in Alabama certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: Is damage to a project caused by faulty workmanship "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence"? With some qualification, the Connecticut Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Capstone Building Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886 (Conn. June 11, 2013). Captsone Development agreed to coordinate and supervise construction on a building at the University of Conneticut. Capstone Building was the general contractor. UConn secured an OCIP policy from American Motorist Insurance Company ("AMICO"). More than three years after completion, UConn notified the insureds of alleged defects in the project, including elevated levels of carbon monoxide. The source of the leak was the individual hot water heaters in residential units and insufficient draft of exhaust from the heater.Other defects were found during an investigation. The insureds tendered to AMICO. Coverage was denied because the liability arose out of the insureds' own work.The insureds settled with UConn, paying $1 million each. The insureds then sued AMICO in Alabama and the question was certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

October 18, 2021 — Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Introduction: Under a no-damage-for-delay clause, the owner is not liable for any monetary damages resulting from delays on the project. In lieu of monetary recovery, the contractor’s remaining remedy is a non-compensatory time extension. These clauses are common at the contractor-subcontractor interface as well. While no-damage-for-delay clauses are enforced in most jurisdictions, some states, either by statute or case law, have limited the enforceability of no-damage-for-delay clauses. Other states have also limited the enforceability of these clauses on state government contracts, and a select few have outlawed them on all projects regardless if they are publicly or privately owned. Additionally, for subcontractors on federal projects, the Miller Act may provide a way to avoid no-damage-for-delay and recover against the general contractor’s payment bond. This article provides an overview of no-damage-for-delay clauses and the exceptions to enforcement of these clauses. However, due to the consequences of a no-damage-for-delay clause, it is important to know the terms of your contract and the law that governs your project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com

---

Court of Appeals Issues Decision Regarding Second-Tier Subcontractors and Pre-Lien Notice

February 06, 2023 — Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Velazquez Framing, LLC (“Velazquez”) v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (“Cascadia”) is a Court of Appeals, Division 2 case where the primary issue on appeal was whether a second tier subcontractor was required to provide pre-lien notice under RCW 60.04 for its labor. The defendant, Cascadia, was the general contractor that planned to build a home on property it owned in Lakewood, Washington.[1] High End Construction, LLC (“High End”), submitted a bid to Cascadia for framing work on the home. High End began work on Cascadia’s home, but later subcontracted with Velazquez to complete the framing work.[2] Velazquez did not submit a prelien notice for its work on Cascadia’s home, and Cascadia claimed it was unaware that High End subcontracted with Velazquez for framing at the project. High End invoiced Cascadia and was paid for its work, but High End never paid Velazquez. Subsequently, Velazquez recorded a lien for both labor and materials, and later filed a complaint to foreclose its lien. Cascadia, due to the fact Velazquez did not provide it with prelien notice, moved for summary judgment, arguing prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.031(1)[3] and the labor portion of a lien cannot be segregated where a subcontractor’s lien includes both labor and materials. Velazquez argued that no prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.021[4] and RCW 60.04.031 and claimed that subcontractors can segregate the labor portion from the materials portion. The trial court granted Cascadia’s motion and ruled Velazquez did not fall within one of the exceptions for prelien notice in RCW 60.04.031(2), and therefore, could not enforce the lien. Velazquez appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.com

---

South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Last year, Judge J. Michael Baxley approved a class action lawsuit over stucco problems in Sun City Hilton Head. The lawyers from S.C. State Plastering have already settled with about 140 defendants in that community, and they are trying to prevent the plaintiff’s lawyers from communicating with other residents. In June, a judge dismissed S.C. State Plastering’s request to block this communication, but the company has appealed. The South Carolina Supreme Court has heard the case regarding the notices and has yet to rule. The Chief Justice has recused herself, stating that she has a connection to the case, although she has not elaborated. Many homeowners have waited to repair their homes, hoping to receive compensation. Pulte Homes, the builder of the project, has also repaired some homes. It is not clear if those homeowners are eligible for the class action lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---