SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers Lists

October 28, 2024 — Linda Carter - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that Tim Capowski was selected to the 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers list, and Christopher Theobalt and Sofya Uvaydov were selected to the 2024 NY Metro Rising Stars list. All three attorneys were recognized in the Appellate practice area. Tim Capowski is a partner at Kahana Feld and chair of the firm’s National Appellate Litigation & Consulting Group. He has spent the better part of three decades at the forefront of the insurance defense bar. Tim has litigated hundreds of appeals and thousands of motions in state and federal and appellate courts throughout New York and around the country. He handles a variety of complex litigation including catastrophic property and casualty claims, construction defect, professional liability, labor and employment law, mass torts, insurance coverage, and more. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

---

Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

January 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

November 16, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are a contractor, you are aware of workers’ compensation immunity when it comes to injuries on the site; and, if not, you should be. It is this workers’ compensation immunity (where workers compensation is the exclusive form of liability for an injured employee) which is why a contractor should generally always want to ensure its subcontractors have workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ compensation immunity would protect a contractor that is being sued by a subcontractor’s employees that are injured on the job. For more information on workers’ compensation immunity, please check out this article and this article. In this regard, Florida Statute s. 440.10(1)(b) provides:

In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment.

(If the subcontractor does not have workers’ compensation insurance, the contractor is deemed the statutory employer and its workers’ compensation insurance would apply. Otherwise, the subcontractor’s workers compensation insurance would apply.) 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

---

10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2023 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023

August 22, 2022 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Four Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2023. Congratulations to:

• Bruce Cleeland – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
• Peter Dubrawski – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
• Denis Moriarty – Insurance law
• Ted Penny – Workers’ Compensation Law – Claimants

Six Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2023. Congratulations to:

• Courtney Arbucci – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
• Frances Brower – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
• Kyle DiNicola – Transportation Law
• Arezoo Jamshidi – Appellate Practice; Transportation Law
• Kristian Moriarty – Transportation Law
• Bethsaida Obra-White – Construction Law; Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---

Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022

May 16, 2022 — Matthew C. Lewis & Nicole R. Kardassakis - Payne & Fears
A new, third revised version of the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (“ETS”) has been approved by Cal/OSHA, and is expected to go into effect on May 6, 2022. This updated ETS will likely be in effect through Dec. 31, 2022. The language still needs to be reviewed, finalized, and filed with the Secretary of State by the Office of Administrative Law, but a redline of the proposed changes that Cal/OSHA has approved is available here. Much of the previous ETS (which took effect in January 2022, and we discussed here) will remain in effect. But the new version includes some key changes, including the following:

• Employers will now have similar obligations toward employees who are fully vaccinated and employees who are not fully vaccinated with respect to testing and face coverings. Employers must make COVID-19 testing available at no cost to all symptomatic employees during the employee’s paid time, regardless of the employee’s vaccination status. Employers also must make respirators available to all employees upon request, again regardless of the employee’s vaccination status.

Reprinted courtesy of Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and Nicole R. Kardassakis, Payne & Fears Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Ms. Kardassakis may be contacted at nrk@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Federal Courts Reject Insurers’ Attempts to Recoup Defense Costs Expended Under Reservation of Rights

April 11, 2022 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo Meta - White and Williams
In situations where there is a dispute over a duty to defend, an insurer may provide a defense to its insured, subject to a reservation of rights, to not only deny coverage for a defense, but also to file a declaratory judgment action and recoup defense costs in the event it is determined there is no duty to defend. But are defense costs recoupable? Last week, federal trial courts in Georgia and Pennsylvania answered this question with a resounding “no”. In Chemical Equipment Labs, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Case No. 19-3441, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61298 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 31, 2022), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was called to determine whether Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers) was entitled to reimbursement of defense costs after it was determined that it had no duty to defend its insured in an arbitration for breach of a charter agreement. The Travelers’ policies did not contain an express reimbursement provision. The court found that Travelers was not entitled to reimbursement because under Pennsylvania law, “[r]eimbursement of defense costs requires an express provision in the written insurance contract.” Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Margo Meta, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

October 02, 2018 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Essex Walnut Owner L.P. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138276 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had occasion to consider the issue of a pollution liability insurer’s obligation to pay for the redesign of a structural support system necessitated by the alleged presence of soil contamination. Aspen’s insured, Essex, owned a parcel of property it was in the process of redeveloping for commercial and residential purposes. The project required excavation activities in order to construct an underground parking lot, and as part of this process, Essex designed a temporary shoring system comprising tied-in retaining walls in order to stabilize the area outside of the excavation. During the excavation work, construction debris was encountered requiring removal. Aspen agreed to pay for a portion of the costs to remove and dispose the debris under the pollution liability policy it issued to Essex. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

---

Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

January 05, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Sixth Circuit found that the surety did not act in bad faith when it settled the general contractor's claims against the State of Michigan over delays on a construction project. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. E.L. Bailey & Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20018 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 2016). Bailey, the general contractor, entered into a surety agreement under which Great American would issue surety bonds on behalf of Bailey in the construction of a kitchen at a State prison. Bailey, the principal, paid Great American (GAIC), the surety, to provide bonds guaranteeing contract performance to the State, the obligee or owner. GAIC provided a performance bond, guaranteeing performance of the contract work, and a payment bond, guaranteeing payments to subcontractors and suppliers. Under the agreement, Bailey would indemnify GAIC for all payments or other expenses GAIC incurred due on either bond, and would pay upon demand collateral in an amount to be determined by GAIC. In the event of an alleged breach by Bailey, the agreement assigned to GAIC all Bailey's rights under its contract with the State and well as all its claims against any party. Bailey never finalized completion, and GAIC reached agreement with the State for another contractor to complete the project. 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

---