Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's and insured's intent as to which entities were to be insured prevented the insurer's motion for summary judgment. Chaus v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136311 (E.D. La. Oct. 5, 2015). Water damage from a broken pipe occurred at the insured's building. Blaze Chaus LLC owned the building.The building was occupied by two entities which provided health care services: Dr. Kelly G. Burkenstock, M.D. and Azure Spa, Inc. Dr. Burkenstock was the sole owner of all three entities. The application for commercial insurance was submitted by "Dr. Kelly G. Burkenstock, d/b/a/ Blaze Chaus LLC." The application requested a "Physicians and Surgeons Endorsement" and reflected that the business activities of the applicant as "Internal Medicine Doctor." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

August 13, 2019 — Joanna Masterson - Construction Executive
Nearly 40% of workers are more concerned with on-the-job safety this year than they were last year, according to a 360training.com survey of a thousand people across several manual labor-intensive industries. Additionally, a quarter of workers worry every day about getting injured because of their job. That number goes up to 27% for workers in the construction and oil industries. Slips, trips and falls were the top workplace safety concern (36%), followed by electrical hazards (13%), ergonomic problems (9%), vehicle/equipment accidents (7%) and falling objects (6%). For the construction industry specifically, electrical hazards were identified as the leading cause of concern. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award

December 29, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here is an interesting case binding a Miller Act payment bond surety to an arbitration award against its prime contractor (bond principal) that it received sufficient notice of. Notice is the operative word. The surety could have participated in the arbitration, elected not to, and when its prime contractor (bond principal) lost the arbitration, it was NOT given another bite out of the apple to litigate facts already been decided. In BRC Uluslararasi Taahut VE Ticaret A.S. v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6801933 (D. Maryland 2020), a prime contractor was hired by the federal government to make security upgrades and interior renovations to a United States embassy in the Czech Republic. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform all of the installed contract work. The prime contractor terminated the subcontractor for default during the course of construction. The subcontractor demanded arbitration in accordance with the subcontract claiming it was wrongfully terminated. The subcontractor also filed a lawsuit asserting a Miller Act payment bond claim against the prime contractor’s surety (as well as a breach of contract action against the prime contractor). The subcontractor made clear it intended to pursue its claims in arbitration and hold the payment bond surety jointly and severally liable. The parties agreed to stay the lawsuit since the facts were identical to those being arbitrated. The arbitration went forward and an award was entered in favor of the subcontractor and against the prime contractor for approximately $2.3 Million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Hartford Stadium Controversy Still Unresolved

September 22, 2016 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
The Hartford Yard Goats and the city of Hartford, Conn., say Arch Insurance—the surety for the dual developer/prime contractor of the minor-league baseball team’s new, unfinished stadium—has committed to helping complete the project now that the team and its developer have acrimoniously split. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr.com@bnpmedia.com

CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

April 28, 2016 — David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
California’s Business and Professions Code requires contractors to be licensed by the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). The CSLB issues licenses in 44 different classifications which are separated into three categories: “A” licenses are for general engineering contractors, “B” licenses are for general building contractors, and “C” licenses are specialty licenses that cover everything from installing boilers to installing ornamental metal. Performing construction work without a license or without the requisite license is a misdemeanor and can lead to the imposition of fines and in certain instances, jail time. (California’s Business and Professions Code Section 7028(a).) While potential imprisonment is unlikely, contractors are frequently fined, or prohibited from filing suit to collect money for their work. Perhaps most onerous, a contractor who is unlicensed, or working with a suspended license or the wrong license, can be forced to return all of the money it was paid for its work. (See our alert:Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com

Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

January 02, 2024 — Lara Degenhart Cassidy & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Hawaii Supreme Court emphatically rejected insurer efforts to seek reimbursement of defense costs absent a provision in the policy providing for such reimbursement in St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Bodell Construction Company, No. SCCQ-22-0000658, 2023 WL 7517083, (Haw. Nov. 14, 2023). The state high court’s well-reasoned decision rests on bedrock law regarding insurance policy construction and application, follows the nationwide trend of courts compelling insurers to satisfy their contractual obligations in full, and should carry great weight as other jurisdictions continue to debate the same issue. In Bodell, the Hawaii Supreme Court joined the swelling ranks of courts recognizing that an insurer may not use a reservation of rights to create the extra-contractual “right” to recoup already paid defense costs for a claim on which the insurer ultimately owes no coverage. See, e.g., Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2010). Other jurisdictions, such as California, will permit an insurer to seek reimbursement from a policyholder for defense costs incurred in defending claims later determined to be uncovered. See Buss v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 35 (1997) (holding insurers have a right to reimbursement of defense costs incurred for noncovered claims). Reprinted courtesy of Lara Degenhart Cassidy, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Cassidy may be contacted at lcassidy@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

June 29, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no coverage for the insureds' alleged negligent failure to construct a building. Evanston Ins. Co. v. DCM Contracting, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63977 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2020). Turning Point Church sued DCM Contracting for faulty workmanship on a construction project. Turning Point sent a demand letter to DCM on August 18, 2017 and filed suit in December. Evanston did not receive notice of Turning Point's claims and the lawsuit until May 15, 2018. Evanston filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment. The court first considered the late notice. The policy required notice "as soon as practicable" DCM was also required to provide copies of demands, notices, or legal papers to Evanston. Here, DCM did not give notice to Evanston until nine months after receipt of Turning Point's demand. A phone communication with DCM's agent between August 2017 and May 2018 was insufficient. DCM provided no documents, including the summons and complaint, to the agent. DCM waited five months to forward the underlying lawsuit. This was a breach of the policy. 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

Colorado Requires Builders to Accommodate High-Efficiency Devices in New Homes

December 14, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
Starting in 2009, the Colorado Legislature began adding requirements that builders offer certain options to accommodate high-efficiency devices. These requirements started with solar prewire options in 2009, then water-smart home options in 2010. In 2020, the Legislature added requirements for electric vehicle charging and heating systems. These sections apply to unoccupied homes serving as sales inventory or a model home or manufactured homes, as defined by Colorado law. While the Legislature has only required builders to include options to accommodate these devices, it may be just a matter of time until builders must install the prescribed devices themselves. In 2009, the Legislature passed C.R.S. 38-35.7-106, which was amended this year by HB 20-1155. As it now reads, Colorado law requires every builder of single-family detached residences to offer to have the home’s electrical or plumbing system, or both, include:

A residential photovoltaic solar generation system or a residential thermal system, or both;
Upgrades of wiring or plumbing, or both, planned by the builder to accommodate future installation of such systems; and
A chase or conduit, or both, constructed to allow ease of future installation of the necessary wiring or plumbing for such systems.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES