SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

August 19, 2015 — Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLP
In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Know Your Obligations Under Both the Prime Contract and Subcontract

December 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
A recent case out of New Mexico highlights the importance for subcontractors to review their contract with the general and the contract between the general and the owner. In Centex/Worthgroup, LLC v. Worthgroup Architects, L.P, the architect claimed that the limitation of liability clause in the prime contract trumped the provisions of the subcontract. The court disagreed and ruled that the specific provision in the subcontract controlled. In the case, a general contractor was hired to expand and renovate a resort. The general contractor subcontracted with an architect to design a mechanically stabilized earth wall. The prime contract contained a limitation of liability clause that states:

general contractor shall require its design professional Subcontractor(s) to obtain insurance in an amount not less than $3,000,000. Owner agrees that it will limit general contractor’s liability to Owner for any errors or omissions in the design of the Project to whatever sums Owner is able to collect from the above described professional errors and omissions insurance carrier.

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

---

Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks

September 28, 2020 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Greater Mutual Insurance Company v. Continental Casualty Company, 2020 WL 5370419 (S.D.N.Y. September 8, 2020), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had occasion to consider the “other insurance” provisions of a commercial general liability policy, issued by Greater Mutual Insurance Company (“GNY”), and a directors and officers (“D&O”) policy, issued by Continental, to the same insured. The GNY policy covered, inter alia, property damage caused by an occurrence, as well as “personal advertising injury,” defined to include “[t]he wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that a person occupies, committed by or on behalf of its owner, landlord or lessor.” The Continental D&O policy covered claims for wrongful acts, including “wrongful entry or eviction, or other invasion of the right to private occupancy. . . .” Unlike the GNY policy, however, the Continental policy expressly excluded coverage for damage to tangible property. In the underlying action, the plaintiffs alleged that the insured engaged in construction work to fix a leak from a terrace on the seventeenth floor. In doing so, the insured accessed the plaintiffs’ roof terrace. The plaintiffs alleged that the construction workers installed and stored construction materials on the roof terrace, making the plaintiffs unable to access the terrace. Plaintiffs also alleged that their deck furniture may have suffered damage, and that the workers had a “direct line of sight” into their unit, resulting in the plaintiffs having to leave their unit frequently. Causes of action were for property damage, constructive eviction, partial constructive eviction, and invasion of privacy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

---

Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

October 11, 2017 — Malcom Ranger-Murdock - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently determined that manuscript additional insured endorsements (AIEs), which purportedly provided coverage for ongoing operations only, were ambiguous. The court also found the insurer that issued the policies, American Safety Indemnity Co. (American Safety), acted in bad faith due to its systematic efforts to deny coverage to general contractors as additional insureds. In Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co.,1 Pulte Home Corporation (Pulte Home), a general contractor, sued American Safety for failure to defend Pulte Home as an additional insured in connection with two underlying construction defect lawsuits. American Safety contended that it did not have a duty to defend Pulte Home because the loss occurred after the construction project was complete and the applicable AIEs did not provide coverage for completed operations, and/or because the policy’s faulty workmanship exclusions applied. The trial court awarded $1.4 million in compensatory and punitive damages to Pulte Home, and American Safety appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Malcom Ranger-Murdock, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Ranger-Murdock may be contacted at mrm@sdvlaw.com

---

No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

August 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a dispute between two insurers, the district court determined that the contractor was not an additional insured under the subcontractor's policy. Navigators Spec. Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79338 (N. D. Cal. June 17, 2015). McDevitt & McDevitt Construction Corporation was the general contractor for construction of a condominium complex. McDevitt was insured by Navigators Specialty Insurance Company. F&M was a subcontractor for the project for providing structural steel components. F&M's subcontract required it to obtain liability insurance and name McDevitt as an additional insured under a policy that was to be primary. F&M secured a policy with North American Capacity Insurance Company (NAC) which included an endorsement for additional insureds. The endorsement provided that an entity could be an additional insured only with respect to "occurrences resulting from work performed by you during the policy period, or occurrences resulting from the conduct of your business during the policy period." McDevitt and F&M were sued for construct defect claims. Navigators defended McDevitt and NAC defended F&M. Navigators tendered McDevitt's defense to NAC because McDevitt was an additional insured under NAC's policy. NAC disclaimed coverage. 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

---

Standard For Evaluating Delay – Directly from An Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeal’s Opinion

October 04, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes, it is much better to hear it from the horse’s mouth. That is the case here. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal’s (ASBCA) opinion in Appeals of -GSC Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 59402, 2020 WL 8148687 (ASBCA November 4, 2020) includes an informative discussion of a contractor’s burden when it encounters excusable delay and, of importance, the standard for evaluating delay. It’s a long discussion but one that parties in construction need to know, appreciate, and understand. EVERY WORD IN THIS DISCUSSION MATTERS. Construction projects get delayed and with a delay comes money because time is money. Many claims are predicated on delay. These can be an owner assessing liquidated damages due to a delayed job or a contractor seeking its costs for delay. Either way, the standard for evaluating delay and the burdens imposed on a party cannot be understated and, certainly, cannot be overlooked. For this reason, here is the discussion on evaluating delay directly from the horse’s mouth in the Appeal of-GSC Construction, Inc.:

The critical path is the longest path in the schedule on which any delay or disruption would cause a day-for-day delay to the project itself; those activities must be performed as they are scheduled and timely in order for the project to finish on time. Wilner v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 241, 245 (1991). In Yates-Desbuild Joint Venture, CBCA No. 3350 et al., 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,870, our sister board compiled an excellent and very helpful synopsis of the standards for evaluating delay claims, which I adopt nearly verbatim among the discussion that follows.

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

---

Low Interest Rates Encourages Homeowners to become Landlords

June 18, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
CNN Money reported that more homeowners are deciding to keep their homes rather than sell, and become landlords instead. "Clients tell us all the time, 'We're never going to sell our home, even after we buy a new one,'" Glenn Kelman, CEO of the brokerage, Redfin, told CNN Money. “The math works in most landlords' favor these days,” according to CNN Money. “Rents have risen by about 20% nationwide since mid-2006, the housing bubble peak, while home prices are still about 21% below what they were at that time.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

PAGA Right of Action Not Applicable to Construction Workers Under Collective Bargaining Agreement

December 26, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California is one of the most employee-friendly states in the country. From strict hiring laws (don’t think about asking about an applicant’s criminal, credit or even salary history), to generous benefits (minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest breaks, family medical leave, etc.) and strict anti-harassment laws (if you have to think about it, even for a second, don’t do it), to protections for terminated workers (whistle blower protections, WARN notices, non-compete restrictions), California workers enjoy protections that many others do not. This includes PAGA, or the Private Attorneys General Act, which authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits against their employers to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. In general, the right of an employee to file a PAGA action cannot be waived by contract. However, Labor Code section 2699.6 which was enacted in 2018 provides an exception for construction workers who perform work under certain collective bargaining agreements. In the next case, Oswald v. Murray Plumbing and heating Corporation, 82 Cal.App.5th 938 (2022), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether collective bargaining agreement with a retroactive date, signed after an employee was terminated, precluded an employee from bringing a PAGA action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---