SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Texas Allows Wide Scope for Certificate of Merit

January 07, 2025 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
The purpose of certificate of merit (sometimes referred to as affidavit of merit) statutes is to identify frivolous claims before the court wastes time and resources during litigation. More common in medical malpractice cases, several states have enacted similar requirements for professional negligence claims dealing with construction-related issues. While a subrogation attorney should not be bringing a frivolous case to suit anyway, the requirement adds another step in the process that plaintiffs need to properly navigate. Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires that in an action arising out of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, claimants must file an affidavit from a qualified expert attesting to the theories of recovery, the negligence and the factual basis for the claims. The expert must be competent, have the same professional license or registration as the defendant and practice in the area of practice of the defendant. In Janis Smith Consulting, LLC v. Rosenberg, No. 03-23-00370-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 7961, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District (Court of Appeals) addressed a challenge from the defendant as to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s certificate of merit in an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the allegedly improper certificate of merit, holding that the plaintiff’s expert was sufficiently qualified to certify the legitimacy of the case. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

October 29, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insured's motion to stay the coverage action while the construction defect case was pending in state court. Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Essex Homes Southeast, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133120 (D. S.C., Sept. 23, 2014). The homeowners sued Essex Homes in state court for construction defects in a home built and sold to them by Essex Homes. The suit sought damages for property damage based on negligence, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranties arising out of the alleged construction defects. The complaint alleged that a water leak in the house caused water damage and resulted in mold growth that was not discovered for several years. 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

---

White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

January 28, 2014 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams attorneys scored a significant victory for the insurance industry on January 15, 2014, when a federal jury of four men and four women rejected a policyholder’s novel efforts to invalidate asbestos exclusions contained in insurance policies issued between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985. In General Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 04-CV-3509 (E.D. Pa.), General Refractories Company contended that asbestos exclusions in insurance policies issued by various insurance companies in the late 1970s and 1980s had not been submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance for approval prior to use and, therefore, were unenforceable. Holding a failure to obtain approval, by itself, would not be sufficient to render the exclusions unenforceable, the Honorable Edmund Ludwig sent the matter to trial to determine whether the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner implemented a policy that was uniformly executed by the Insurance Department to disapprove all asbestos exclusions between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985, such that the exclusions violated a “dominant public policy.”

Reprinted courtesy of Gregory LoCasale, White and Williams LLP

and Patricia Santelle , White and Williams LLP

Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com and Mr. LoCasale may be contacted at locasaleg@whiteandwilliams.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Engineer Pauses Fix of 'Sinking' Millennium Tower in San Francisco

September 13, 2021 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Engineers paused work for at least two weeks on the $100-million foundation upgrade for San Francisco's 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower high-rise residential condominium after measurements showed increased settlement during the installation of pile casings for the new piles. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

July 27, 2020 — Daniel F. Fears & Raymond J. Nhan - Payne & Fears
Businesses contemplating moving to a virtual workplace in this post-COVID-19 world must consider the legal ramifications of such decisions. Virtual workplaces may provide businesses with many benefits, such as cost savings, access to a more geographically diverse worker pool and the possibility of more flexible employment relationships. But a virtual workplace may also include hidden employment-related issues, costs, and traps. This is especially so for California-based companies. This article identifies some of the significant employment-law issues related to transitioning to a virtual workplace. Specifically, this article analyzes three scenarios: (1) employers seeking to have their workers continue working from home; (2) workers desiring to continue working from home — and specifically, seeking to work outside of California; and (3) the hiring of new employees. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. Fears, Payne & Fears and Raymond J. Nhan, Payne & Fears Mr. Fears may be contacted at dff@paynefears.com Mr. Nhan may be contacted at rjn@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

May 11, 2020 — Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In response to the large number of COVID-19-related losses that businesses are experiencing, insurers have begun issuing statements informing their insureds of whether their policies will respond to the losses, and if so, what coverage will be afforded. Insurers cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the COVID-19 losses because, besides factual differences, the losses are occurring within all fifty states which means 50 different state law interpretations will apply. Recently, on March 27, 2020, a number of restaurants and movie theaters located in and around Chicago (the “Insureds”) filed a declaratory judgement action, titled Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC et al. v. Society Insurance, Inc., against their property insurance carrier, Society Insurance, Inc. (“Society”), seeking coverage for business interruption resulting from the shutdown order issued by the governor of Illinois. The suit alleges that Society improperly denied their business interruption claims by using a boiler plate denial. The denial issued by Society is allegedly used for all COVID-19 losses regardless of the applicable jurisdiction’s interpretation of the policy language and the specific coverage purchased by the insured. Further, in its denial, Society takes the position that any loss related to a government-issued closure order is uncovered, even though the Insureds specifically purchased business interruption coverage and their policies did not contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

---

Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations

March 29, 2017 — Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
The Community Associations Institute (“CAI”) recently partnered with its members and industry stakeholders to create a survey about construction deficiencies to learn how they impact homeowners and condominium associations. Click here to view the Construction Defects Report containing the details of the responses to the survey. Click here to see a video presentation summarizing the results of the Construction Defects Survey. This Community Associations Institute (“CAI”) Construction Defects Report demonstrates that many community associations do not discover construction deficiencies until after warranties have expired and/or fail to take the necessary actions to preserve their claims before the statutes of limitations runs. As a result, many homeowners and Condominium associations ended up using association funds to correct builder construction defects and damages caused thereby. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

---

The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

December 20, 2021 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Last year, I posted regarding the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Woodbridge II, which concluded that the “adverse use” element for prescriptive easement claims only requires the claimant to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2. Thus, Woodbridge II concluded, the claimants acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. Id. That decision was up for review by the Colorado Supreme Court at the time of my prior post. It has now been affirmed, thereby settling an arguable appellate decision split created by Woodbridge II. See Lo Viento Blanco, LLC v. Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2021 CO 56 (“Woodbridge”). “Like the division below, and for much the same reasons,” the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed in Woodbridge “that under Colorado law, a claimant’s acknowledgement or recognition of the owner’s title during the claimant’s asserted prescriptive period does not interrupt the prescriptive use or undermine the claimant’s adverse use.” Woodbridge, ¶ 2. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Gabriel’s opinion agreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning “that although Woodbridge recognized that it did not hold title, no evidence indicated that it had acted in subordination to the owner’s title.” Id. ¶ at 13. The Court further agreed with Woodbridge II’srejection of Lo Viento’s “permissive use” argument because “the permission offered … was conditional and Woodbridge never agreed to any of the conditions set forth therein.” Id. On that basis, Woodbridge confirmed that “a claimant seeking to establish a prescriptive easement need not show that it asserted exclusive ownership of the property during the prescriptive period,” but only “that its use was without permission or otherwise unauthorized and that it interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Id. at ¶ 23. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

---