SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

September 07, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the insurer had no duty to defend claims against the insured for faulty workmanship. HT Services, LLC v. Western Heritage Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123664 (D. Colo. July 10, 2020). Western Heritage Insurance Company issued three concurrent general liability policies to HT Services, LLC. The policies insured two properties owned by HT in Colorado Springs, its offices and vacant land. HT eventually developed a residential community on the vacant land. In January 2016, the homeowners' association filed suit against HT for negligent design and construction of a retaining wall at the project. HT requested Western to defend and indemnify against the suit. Western denied coverage and HT sued. HT asserted that Western had a duty to defend and asserted claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith. HT moved for partial summary judgment on its claims for declaratory relief, seeking a determination of its rights under the policies. Western moved for summary judgment on all of HT's claims. 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

---

Texas Supreme Court Finds Payment of Appraisal Award Does Not Absolve Insurer of Statutory Liability

April 19, 2021 — Allison Griswold & Sarah Smith - Lewis Brisbois
The Texas Supreme Court recently published its long-awaited decision in the Hinojos v. State Farm Lloyds. In it, the court affirmed its holding in Barbara Technologies, finding that payment of an appraisal award does not absolve an insurer of statutory liability when the insurer accepts a claim but pays only part of the amount it owes within the statutory deadline, and a policy holder can proceed with an action under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act. In 2013, Louis Hinojos made a claim for storm damage to his home. State Farm’s initial inspection resulted in an estimate below the deductible, but Hinojos disagreed and requested a second inspection. At the second inspection, the adjuster identified additional damage resulting in a payment to Hinojos of $1,995.11. Hinojos then sued State Farm – and State Farm invoked appraisal approximately 15 months after suit was filed. The appraisal resulted in State Farm tendering an additional payment of $22,974.75. State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that timely payment of an appraisal award precluded prompt payment (or Chapter 542) damages. The trial court granted summary judgment and Hinojos appealed (notably Barbara Technologies had not yet been decided). The Court of Appeals affirmed State Farm’s victory on the basis that “State Farm made a reasonable payment on Hinojos’s claim within the sixty-day statutory limit….” Hinojos petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review. Reprinted courtesy of Allison Griswold, Lewis Brisbois and Sarah Smith, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Griswold may be contacted at Allison.Griswold@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Smith may be contacted at Sarah.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW

March 22, 2021 — Michael Krueger - Newmeyer Dillion
The American Rescue Plan Act (“Act”) was passed by the Senate over the weekend and passed by the House today. President Biden is set to sign the Act into law on Friday, March 12th. The Act has $1.9 Trillion in relief funds with $28.6 Billion set aside for the restaurant industry in the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“Fund”). The Fund has apportioned funds into two funding groups; $5 Billion for restaurants with annual gross revenue under $500,000 and $23.6 Billion for restaurants over $500,000 in annual gross revenue. Differences from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) This is a grant program with no loan documents or forgiveness applications. Instead, each restaurant entity can apply for and receive up to $10M in grant funds through the Act. The amount a restaurant receives is based on the sum of the restaurant’s gross revenue in 2019 minus the gross revenue in 2020 minus PPP and EIDL money received. For example, Restaurant A made $7M gross revenue in 2019, made $3M gross revenue in 2020 and received $1M in PPP and EIDL combined. ($7M - $3M -$1M =$3M) The restaurant will receive $3M in grant funds directly from the SBA (as long as funds are available). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Krueger, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Krueger may be contacted at michael.krueger@ndlf.com

---

The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

November 09, 2020 — Heather Whitehead - Newmeyer Dillion
The ballot initiative, Proposition 24, has been passed by voters in yesterday’s election. What does this proposition entail and how does it impact the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)? What’s Covered in Proposition 24 - The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) The CPRA, among other things, does the following:

• Revises the existing CCPA to expand consumer rights with respect to personal information and sensitive personal information;
• Creates a new agency responsible for enforcing the CPRA; and
• Increases penalties for violations related to the personal information of children under the age of 16.

As for additional consumer rights, the CPRA offers consumers the opportunity to request a correction of inaccurate personal information. In addition, a consumer may direct a company to “limit its use of the consumer's sensitive personal information” to a use that an average customer would expect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com

---

Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

“(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Congratulations to Nicholas Rodriguez on His Promotion to Partner

November 25, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is very proud to announce that Nick Rodriguez has been promoted to the position of partner with the firm! Nick has been with BWB&O since 2019 and is licensed to practice law in California and the U.S. District Courts. Nick’s practice focuses on complex construction defect matters, as well as personal injury and wrongful death claims. During his time with the firm, Nick has successfully represented numerous clients through alternative dispute resolution and has taken matters to trial where he has received favorable jury verdicts. He also supervises and manages a team of associates in the Newport Beach office. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

June 20, 2022 — Jordan Kaplan - Colorado Construction Litigation
In general, issues relating to employment law occur in all industries. However, some issues are more likely to be raised in certain employment contexts. For example, office work environments tend to give rise to harassment and discrimination claims while wage and hour disputes and workplace safety claims are common in the oil and gas industry. In the construction industry, employers must be especially cognizant of discrimination and harassment claims, employee misclassification claims, workplace safety issues, and wage and hour claims. In the context of workers’ compensation claims, construction projects often create unusual situations due to the contractual relationships between the parties. Even relatively simple construction of a single-family residence involves several levels of contracting, including between the owner and general contractor, between the owner or general contractor and design team, between the general contractor and subcontractors, and between the prime subcontractors and lower tiered sub-subcontractors. In most circumstances, this would not be an issue. However, when an injured worker makes a workers’ compensation claim, the contractual relationships among the various entities involved in a project can have a significant impact on which party or parties could be liable for the injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Kaplan, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Kaplan may be contacted at kaplan@hhmrlaw.com

---

San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

October 26, 2017 — Michael C. Parme – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Dryden Oaks, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority et al.(D068161, filed 9/26/17, publication order 10/19/17), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that the County of San Diego (County) and the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (Authority) were entitled to summary judgment on a developer’s “disguised taking” theory of inverse condemnation. In 2001, the developer purchased two large lots (designated Lot 24 and Lot 25) adjacent to the end of a runway at the Palomar Airport in Carlsbad. Plaintiff obtained the necessary permits from the City of Carlsbad and successfully completed construction of an industrial building on Lot 24 in 2005. However, the plaintiff never began development of Lot 25 and the building permit for the property expired in 2012. The developer was then unable to renew the building permit because the Authority had adopted the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in the interim period, which reclassified the Lots as part of a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The developer received a letter explaining that “despite the earlier approval the proposed development was no longer feasible because the ALUCP was more restrictive than the prior compatibility plan and the application's proposed use of ‘research and development’ was not permissible.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com

---