Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

July 05, 2021 — Caroline A. Harcourt, Natalie S. Starkman & Nika Bederman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In a previous post, we described how the New York City Climate Mobilization Act, 2019 (the CMA, or Local Laws 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 147 enacted in 2019) was passed with the goal of reducing New York City’s carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and by 80 percent by 2050 (as against a 2005 baseline as provided for in item 3 of Local Law 97). It is the most ambitious building emissions law to be enacted by any city in the world. The CMA impacts “Covered Buildings” (described below) and, besides contemplating the retrofitting of Covered Buildings to achieve energy efficiency and establishing a monitoring program for Covered Buildings, the CMA contemplates compliance by means of the purchase of carbon offset credits or renewable energy. (Note the new NYC Accelerator program, launched in 2012 by the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, provides guidance regarding energy-efficient upgrades to properties and emission reductions.) Pursuant to the CMA:

Beginning in 2024, Covered Buildings will have to meet the first emission targets, which are calculated by multiplying the gross floor area of each Covered Building by the occupancy classification as set forth in Local Law 97; and
In 2025, owners of Covered Buildings will need to establish compliance by submitting a report establishing such compliance (prepared by a certified design professional) to the newly created Office of Building Energy and Emissions Performance.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Caroline A. Harcourt, Pillsbury
Ms. Harcourt may be contacted at caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com

Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects

April 11, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
While the insured's faulty work constituted an occurrence under Florida law, a prior occurrence exclusion barred coverage. Pro-Tech Caulking & Waterproofing v. TIG Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12319 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2022). Pro-Tech was a waterproofing subcontractor for construction of a oceanfront condominium building and was responsible for the installation of waterproofing systems on the Project. Pro-Tech entered into a separate contract with the developer, BRE Point Parcel, LLC to install a traffic coating on the garage floors. BRE sued the general contractor, Pro-Tech and others for construction defects. The underlying action alleged that Pro-Tech, among other things, failed to wrap the filter fabric to protect the weep holes, improperly installed sealants between the stucco and the underside of the horizontal tile at the balcony slab edge, and failed to properly install traffic coating in one garage. The underlying complaint did not state exactly when the "property damage" resulting from Pro-Tech's alleged defective work occurred. 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

Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

April 11, 2022 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Cheekati, 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, the 4th District Court of Appeals for the State of Illinois addressed whether the term “resident” in a homeowners policy included a tenant leasing the insured premises. The Insureds owned property which was insured through Farmers under a homeowner’s policy. Unable to sell the property, the Insureds entered into a two-year lease agreement with a tenant. Several months after entering into the lease agreement, the tenant allegedly sustained physical injuries inside of the rented premises when a staircase collapsed. The tenant sued the Insureds and the matter was tendered to Farmers. Thereafter, Farmers denied coverage based on an exclusionary provision in the homeowner’s policy. Specifically, the policy contained a "Liability Exclusions" section, which provided:

"Coverage E (Personal Liability) *** and personal injury coverage, if covered under this policy, do not apply to: Any insured or other residents of the residence premises. We do not cover bodily injury or personal injury to: (a) any insured; or (b) any resident of the residence premises, whether resident in the dwelling or a separate structure." (Emphases in original.)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

April 19, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The federal courts have issued some significant environmental law rulings in the past few days. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc. On March 4, 2021, the court held that the deliberative process privilege of the Freedom of Information Act shields from disclosure in-house draft governmental biological opinions that are both “predecisional” and deliberative. According to the court, these opinions, opining on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) effects on aquatic species of a proposed federal rule affecting cooling water intake structures—which was promulgated in 2019—are exempt from disclosure because they do not reflect a “final” agency opinion. Indeed, these ESA-required opinions reflect a preliminary view, and the Services did not treat them as being the final or last word on the project’s desirability. The Sierra Club, invoking the FOIA, sought many records generated by the rulemaking proceeding, and received thousands of pages. However, the Service declined to release the draft biological opinions that were created in connection with the ESA consultative process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
Concluding the “claims of defective construction or workmanship brought by a property owners are not claims for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence’ under a commercial general liability policy,” the Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled in Westfield Insurance Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. In the underlying case, Custom Agri Systems, Inc. built a grain bin as a subcontractor to Younglove Construction, LLC. Younglove had been contracted by PSD Development, which withheld payment, claiming it had suffered damages due to defects in Custom Agri System’s work. Younglove filed a complaint against Custom Agri, which filed complaints against its subcontractors. Custom Agri also requested that its insurer, Westfield Insurance Company, defend and indemnify it. Westfield claimed that it had no such duty. The Ohio Supreme Court concurred. The decision notes that “Custom was being sued under two general theories: defective construction and consequential damages resulting from the defective construction.” Westfield argued that none of the claims were “for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence” and therefore none of the claims were covered under the CGL policy.” Further, Westfield argued that “even if the claims were for property damage caused by an occurrence, they were removed from coverage by an exclusion in the policy.” The case was filed in the US District Court which issued a summary judgment for Westfield. The plaintiff appealed and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the questions to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The court noted that “all of the claims against which Westfield is being asked to defect and indemnify Custom relate to Custom’s work itself.” And so, the court concluded that they “must decide whether Custom’s alleged defective construction of and workmanship on the steel grain bin constitute property damage caused by an ‘occurrence.’” However, the court noted that under the terms of the insurance contract, an occurrence is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” and the court noted that the “natural and commonly accepted meaning” of “accident” is something “unexpected, as well as unintended.” The Ohio Supreme Court also looked at court decisions in other places, and found that in many similar cases, courts have concluded that construction defects are not occurrences. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Pfeifer argues that “if the defective construction is accidental, it constitutes an ‘occurrence’ under a CGL policy.” Justice Pfeifer characterized the majority’s definition of “accidental” as “broad, covering unexpected, unintentional happenings.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause

March 21, 2022 — Brian C. Padove - ConsensusDocs
One of the foundational tenets of contract law is that a party may only be bound by terms they agree to, or in other words, if the party did not sign a contract, that party cannot be bound by the terms thereof. While this principle is generally unwavering, there are certain situations in which a non-signatory to a contract may still be bound by the terms of a contract. In particular, this non-signatory issue may arise when a payment bond claimant makes a bond claim, subsequently files a lawsuit, but the bond contains a forum selection clause different than the venue of the lawsuit and the surety seeks to enforce the bond’s forum selection clause. For example, the claimant may have filed its lawsuit against the surety in federal court, even though the bond provides language specifically mandating that no lawsuit shall be commenced by any claimant other than in a state court where the project is located. Thus, the question then becomes, can the surety enforce the forum selection clause against the claimant when the claimant did not sign the bond and/or never agreed to the terms thereof? The short answer, it depends (yes, that is a very lawyer-like answer). Given recent case law over the past decade, however, the surety has a strong argument in favor of enforcement of the forum selection clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Padove may be contacted at bpadove@watttieder.com

Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

April 28, 2016 — Randall MacTough, Timothy Martin & Christian Singewald – White & Williams LLP
The days of companies being sued in Delaware based solely upon their compliance with Delaware’s registration statutes appear over. Recently, the Delaware Supreme Court, in Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec[1], held that Delaware Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over a foreign corporation registered to do business in Delaware for claims unrelated to its conduct in Delaware. In Delaware, foreign corporations must register to do business and designate a registered agent in Delaware to accept service of process to sell its products or services.[2] Since 1988, Delaware has construed these registration laws as foreign corporations’ express consent to general jurisdiction.[3] Reprinted courtesy of White & Williams LLP attorneys Randall MacTough, Timothy Martin and Christian Singewald Mr. MacTough may be contacted at mactoughr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at martint@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

August 10, 2020 — Robert S. Nobel - Traub Lieberman
On July 27, 2020, in the case of Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. AKI Renovations Group, Inc., (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2020), Index No. 159421/2017 (unpublished), the trial court issued an Order granting summary judgment permitting rescission of a CGL policy based upon material misrepresentations in a policy application. The insured submitted an application in which it failed to disclose its demolition operations despite specific questions seeking this information. Mt. Hawley issued a primary and excess policy for the period of December 29, 2016 to December 29, 2017 (collectively, the policy). Subsequently, the insured sought coverage for a claim in which it was alleged that the insured was acting as a general contractor for demolition of a three-story building when the plaintiff was injured. The insurer advised the defendants that it was rescinding the policy ab initio, and also returned defendants’ premium in its entirety. The insurer asserted that it would not have issued the policy had defendants disclosed their demolition operations, then filed the coverage action seeking a judicial declaration ratifying its rescission of the policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES