SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

May 11, 2020 — Alan Packer & James Hultz - Newmeyer Dillion
For years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims. In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds. Reprinted courtesy of Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Loan Snarl Punishes Spain Builder Backed by Soros, Gates

July 30, 2014 — Katie Linsell, Manuel Baigorri and Ruth David – Bloomberg
Pressure is mounting on Esther Koplowitz to refinance personal loans before a deadline tomorrow and allow a Spanish builder that counts Bill Gates and George Soros among investors to resolve its own debt tangle. Koplowitz is renegotiating about 1 billion euros ($1.8 billion) of debt tied to her controlling stake in Fomento de Construcciones & Contratas SA, according to two people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because it’s private. Her determination to retain control means that she is unlikely to approve any plan by FCC to raise equity until she refinances her own debt, the people said. Ms. Linsell may be contacted at klinsell@bloomberg.net; Mr. Baigorri may be contacted at mbaigorri@bloomberg.net; Ms. David may be contacted at rdavid9@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katie Linsell, Manuel Baigorri and Ruth David, Bloomberg

---

TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Big Builder, “TRI Pointe settled--expectedly--on its mammoth $2.8 billion deal to acquire Weyerhaeuser's five home building operations in the Northwest, California/Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and the Mid-Atlantic regions, a talent-rich operator group, 27,000 building lots, and power brand names via a complex Reverse Morris Trust financial transaction.” This now makes TRI Pointe “one of the top 10 largest public homebuilders in the United States by equity market capitalization based on the closing price of TRI Pointe common stock on July 8, 2014,” according to their press statement, as quoted in Big Builder. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

DOI Aims to Modernize its “Inefficient and Inflexible” Type A Natural Resource Damages Assessment Regulations

March 25, 2024 — Amanda G. Halter, Jillian Marullo & Ashleigh Myers - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) published a proposed rule aimed at modernizing and streamlining the “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). (The comment deadline was later extended.) The revisions, first previewed in a January 2023 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), are intended to fulfill “the original statutory purpose of providing a streamlined and simplified assessment process” with the overarching goal of facilitating settlements and expediting restoration efforts following injury resulting from pollution in a broader range of cases. The NRDA regulations provide two paths to assessing natural resource damages (NRD): (1) the more complex, site-specific Type B procedures for detailed NRDAs and (2) what is intended to be the standard, simplified Type A assessment procedures requiring minimal field observation. Particularly, the Type A process is reserved for two specific aquatic environments (coastal and marine areas or Great Lakes environments) when a relatively minor release of a single hazardous substance occurs, resulting in a smaller scale and scope of natural resource injury, and the rebuttal presumption for the Type A procedure is limited to damages of $100,000 or less under the current version of the rule. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

February 06, 2019 — Danielle Carter - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects people with disabilities against discrimination in three important settings: 1. Employment (ADA Title I) 2. Government Services and Public Transportation (ADA Title II) 3. Commercial Facilities and Places of Public Accommodation (ADA Title III) Since business owners typically act as both employers and facility managers, they must pay careful attention to Title I and Title III of the ADA. A business owner’s ADA compliance checklist should include the following: 1. ADA Compliance Audit for Structural Accessibility. The ADA and its accompanying regulations set forth detailed legal standards and requirements for accessible design, which specify, for example, the minimum width of doors to conference rooms, the maximum height of public drinking fountains, and the maximum thickness of hallway carpeting. Many older buildings were built without features that accommodate people with disabilities, such that the ADA may require improvements to be made to existing facilities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Danielle Carter, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Ms. Carter may be contacted at info@bremerwhyte.com

---

Anchoring Abuse: Evolution & Eradication

October 09, 2023 — Tim Capowski & Chris Theobalt - Kahana Feld
Over the past few years, the plaintiff bar has expanded its use of improper anchoring tactics. Historically, improper anchoring was seen as a risky tactic in which a plaintiff’s counsel would suggest an outrageous figure for pain and suffering during summation in the hope that the lay jury would either award it or split the difference (cut the suggested figure by half) and, either way, return an excessive or runaway verdict. Plaintiff counsel deployed the tactic infrequently through the turn of the century for fear of alienating the jury by appearing greedy. Two interrelated factors happened to change this dynamic. First, the plaintiff bar worked extremely hard in the intervening years with great success to shed its “ambulance chaser” stereotype by marketing itself as the “protector of the vulnerable”. Second, with the rise in Reptile and punitive tactics spawned in part by the publication of the Reptile handbook, the plaintiff bar also discovered that juries were not alienated by outrageous anchors as long as they were preceded by Reptile commentary essentially to “prime” the jury to punish the defendant rather than compensate the plaintiff with its award. This is not speculation. I recall sitting outside a courtroom with one of New York’s top plaintiff attorneys in 2006 during deliberations on a catastrophic personal injury trial, during which he conceded to me that he was worried he had asked the jury for too large a figure (it was not even eight figures). A decade later in 2016, that same attorney felt no trepidation in requesting nearly $100 million for a comparable injury. He fed the jurors a steady diet of Reptile tactics from start to finish and they dutifully awarded the requested figure. Our research confirms that this two-step strategy (Reptile + improper anchor) preceded every New York nuclear verdict returned from 2010-2022. The same is almost certainly true of most nuclear verdicts in other jurisdictions. Reprinted courtesy of Tim Capowski, Kahana Feld and Chris Theobalt, Kahana Feld Mr. Capowski may be contacted at tcapowski@kahanafeld.com Mr. Theobalt may be contacted at ctheobalt@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

David A. Frenznick Awarded Multiple Accolades in the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America

September 23, 2019 — David A. Frenznick - Wilke Fleury
Wilke Fleury congratulates attorney David A. Frenznick on his inclusion in the 26th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America© for his work in: Litigation – Real Estate! In addition, David was also acknowledged as a 2020 “Lawyer of the Year” award recipient. He received this accolade for his work in Litigation – Real Estate in Sacramento. Only a single lawyer in each practice area and community is honored with a “Lawyer of the Year” award. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Almost 94,000 industry leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and have received over 11 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world. For the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America©, 8.3 million votes were analyzed, which resulted in more than 62,000 leading lawyers being included in the new edition. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David A. Frenznick, Wilke Fleury
Mr. Frenznick may be contacted at dfrenznick@wilkefleury.com

---

Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

June 13, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
When two competing experts disagreed on the cause of the loss, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the insurer. Garcia v. Firs Community Ins. Co., Fla. App. LEXIS 4237 (Fla. Ct. App. March 28, 2018). Garcia, the homeowner, discovered water damage in his home, allegedly due to a roof leak. Garcia notified his insurer, First Community Insurance Company. A forensic engineer, Ivette Acosta, was retained by First Community to inspect the property. After the inspection, coverage was denied. The homeowner's policy covered direct loss to property only if the loss was a physical loss. Loss caused by ""rain snow, sleet, sand or dust to the interior of a building was excluded unless a covered peril first damaged the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening." Loss caused by wear and tear, marring, or deterioration was also excluded. 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

---