SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)

November 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed teaming agreements in this past here at Construction Law Musings. These agreements are most typically where one of two entities meets a contracting requirement but may not have the capacity to fulfill a contract on its own so brings in another entity to assist. However, these agreements are contracts and are treated as such here in Virginia with all of the law of contracts behind them. One illustrative case occurred here in Virginia and was decided by the Virginia Supreme Court. That case is CGI Fed. Inc. v. FCi Fed. Inc. While this is not strictly a “construction” case, it helps lay out some of the pitfalls of teaming agreements in general. In this case, the parties entered into a fairly typical small business (FCI) Big Business (CGI) teaming arrangement for the processing of visas for the State Department. The parties negotiated the workshare percentage (read payment percentage) should FCI get the work and the teaming agreement set out a framework for the negotiation of a subcontract between FCI, the proposed general contractor, and CGI, the proposed subcontractor. After a while working together, FCI submitted a proposal to the State Department and as part of the negotiations of this proposal, the work percentage for CGI was lowered in exchange for some management positions for CGI relative to the work by amendment to the original teaming agreement. However, one day later FCI submitted a proposal to the State Department that not only didn’t include the management positions, but further lowered CGI’s workshare. 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

---

Update Regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct.

April 28, 2016 — Richard H. Glucksman and David A. Napper – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger In Focus
The construction industry continues to await the California Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.). The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court's holding in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and rejection of the same by the Fifth Appellate District Court in McMillin Albany. The issue is whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2013. CGDRB has been closely monitoring the progress of the case and understands that the real parties in interest have submitted their opening brief on the merits. The Court granted Petitioners a further and final extension to file the answer brief on the merits. The answer deadline is Monday April 25, 2016. Stay tuned. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

April 01, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Charlotte Observer reported that a homebuilder couple “was arrested Tuesday on charges alleging that they kept more than $600,000 three families paid them to build Lake Wylie homes that were never completed.” Robert Scott Kuhlkin and wife, Sherry Lynn Kuhlkin “accepted $189,000 from one family, $239,000 from another family, and $233,000 from a third family to build houses, 16th Circuit assistant solicitor Matthew Hogge said in court, but instead they ‘took the money for themselves.’” The alleged victims told the court that the homes had defects or were left unfinished. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Building on New Risks: Construction in the Age of Greening

February 20, 2023 — Blanca Berruguete - Construction Executive
Fire and explosions remain the No. 1 cause of construction and engineering insurance claims, accounting for 27% of the value of insurance claims over the last five years, according to industry claims data analysis conducted by global commercial insurer AGCS. Natural catastrophes, such as hurricanes or floods, account for almost a fifth of claims by value (19%), followed by defective products (10%). Faulty workmanship or maintenance (8%) and machinery breakdown (7%) round out the top five causes of construction and engineering losses, according to the value of claims. The Risks and Benefits of Greening The analysis was conducted on 22,705 insurance claims made worldwide between January 2017 and December 2021. The claims were worth approximately $13.9 billion in value and include the share of other insurers as well as AGCS. But if there is an impression that the risks remain in stasis, that is not the case. Reprinted courtesy of Blanca Berruguete, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

November 15, 2021 — Sarah J. Odia & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
On Oct. 28, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court in Zurich American Insurance Company v.. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, held that an insured can rely on extrinsic facts to show that an insurer has a duty to defend the insured, as long as the facts were available to the insurer at the time the insured tendered the claim. The court also held that an insured has the burden of proving that an exception to an exclusion in an insurance policy applies to create a duty to defend. In Zurich, Ironshore refused to defend to its insured against multiple property damage claims arising out of construction defects, claiming that its policies’ continuing and progressive damage exclusions barred coverage. The underlying lawsuits made no specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred. Ironshore claimed that the property damage had occurred due to faulty work that predated the commencement of its policies. Two different federal trial courts came to conflicting conclusions in the underlying cases. One held that Ironshore had a duty to defend because Ironshore failed to show that an exception to the exclusion did not apply. The second granted summary judgment in favor of Ironshore holding that the insured failed to meet its burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applied. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah J. Odia, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

August 06, 2014 — Flavia Krause-Jackson – Bloomberg
Even in death, you can’t escape the property bubble. From New York to London, growing populations are competing with the deceased for land, driving up real-estate costs well into the afterlife. In Asian megacities, where cremation is the norm, even space for urns is in short supply. “At the end of the day, it’s like any other piece of real estate,” says Amy Cunningham, a New York state licensed funeral director. “Prices have conspired to put burials out of the range of most people’s budgets.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Flavia Krause-Jackson, Bloomberg
Ms. Krause-Jackson may be contacted at fjackson@bloomberg.net

---

Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage

January 31, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

The broker was not negligent when it proposed additional coverage that was rejected by the insured. Cromer v. Rosenzweig Ins. Agency Inc., 2017 N.Y. App Div. LEXIS 8969 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 21, 2017).

Plaintiff was injured while employed as a painter at property owned by Allen Skriloff. Coverage was denied because injuries to employees, contractors and employees of contractors were excluded. Plaintiff sued Skriloff and obtained a jury verdict of $6.1 million. Skirloff assigned to plaintiff all rights and claims held against the insurer and insurance brokers.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

---

Insured's Claim for Water Damage Dismissed with Leave to Amend

August 12, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the insured's claim for water damage under a homeowners' policy, but granted leave to amend. Thompson v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98486 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2024). The insureds' first amended complaint alleged they "suffered a sudden and accidental water loss below their slab in their home." A plumber hired by the insureds discovered "a copper pipe burst inside a structural concrete footing between a manifold in the living room and the water heater." The insureds notified their insurer, State Farm. Claim adjuster Andrea Acevedo conducted a visual inspection. The complaint alleged she did not "inspect or view the pipe, or have a testing conducted on the pipe." Acevedo sent a letter denying the insureds' claim based upon her finding that "because the loss was caused by a slab leak, there is no coverage available for the loss." The letter explained that the hot water supply line under the home failed due to wear, tear, deterioration and/or electrolysis. The predominant cause of loss to the failed pipe was due to one or a combination of rust, electrolysis, corrosion, wear, tear and/or deterioration. The policy did not cover water damage caused by water from below the surface of the ground. Further coverage for wear, tear, deterioration, rot, mold, maintenance, water from below the surface of the ground and a continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water was excluded. 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

---