SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Professional Liability and Attorney-Client Privilege Bulletin: Intra-Law Firm Communications

January 07, 2015 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Attorney-Client Privilege Protects Confidential Communications Between Law Firm Attorney Representing Current Client and Firm’s General Counsel Regarding Disputes with Client Who Later Files Malpractice Suit In a case of first impression in California, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP v. Superior Court (No. B255182 - filed November 25, 2014), Division Three of the Second District Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether the attorney-client privilege applies to intrafirm communications between law firm attorneys concerning disputes with a current client, when that client later sues the firm for malpractice and seeks to compel production of such communications. The court concluded that when an attorney representing a current client seeks legal advice from the law firm’s designated in-house “general counsel” concerning disputes with the client, the attorney-client privilege applies to their confidential communications. The court held that adoption of the so-called “fiduciary” or “current client” exceptions to the attorney-client privilege is contrary to California law because California courts are precluded from creating implied exceptions to the statutorily created attorney-client privilege. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Five Frequently Overlooked Points of Construction Contracts

October 18, 2021 — Craig H. O'Neill - White and Williams LLP
There is no shortage of articles addressing the key points of construction contracts. Just enter that phrase into any internet search engine and you will find plenty. It should go without saying that a construction contract should be in writing, it should clearly identify the scope of work to be performed and the sums to be paid for that work, and it should address the parties’ rights and responsibilities with regard to termination or suspension of the contract, correcting defective work, and handling claims and disputes—just to name a few. Of course, these items should receive their due consideration. Too often, however, other important aspects of the construction contract get shortchanged. This article aims the spotlight on five often overlooked aspects of construction contracts. Project Schedules Surprisingly, many construction contracts pay little attention to a central component of any construction project: the project schedule. Many contracts provide the dates of commencement and substantial completion but not much else. With the frequent use of project management techniques such as the Critical Path Method (CPM) and the associated software, it is easier than ever to identify which tasks should be prioritized and identify potential areas of delay. The owner’s contract with the general contractor should clearly define the scheduling methods used and provide measures to keep the parties informed of the progress of the work. By including basic scheduling requirements in the contract documents—such as the submission of “Baseline Project Schedules” (consistent with the contract time provisions), “Schedule Progress Updates” (comparing the progress of the work against the Baseline Project Schedule), and “Schedule Recovery Plans” (when Schedule Project Updates indicate projected delays)—the parties can avoid or reduce disputes over project delays that often lead to litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig H. O'Neill, White and Williams LLP
Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

November 23, 2020 — Christopher P. Leise & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLP
After an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier. USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.” Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Students for Fair Admissions: Shaking the Foundations of EEOC Programs and M/WBE Requirements

October 16, 2023 — Denise Farris Scrivener - The Dispute Resolver
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, holding that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 143 S. Ct. 2141, 216 L. Ed. 2d 857 (2023). On July 13, 2023, thirteen state Attorney Generals, relying on Students for Fair Admissions, issued a joint letter to the CEOs of the Fortune 100 companies, urging the elimination of all race-based programs in EEOC and government and private contracting. On July 19, 2023, a Tennessee district court judge issued an injunctive order against the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) application program on the basis of the program’s race-based presumption of disadvantage. Ultima Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 220CV00041DCLCCRW, 2023 WL 4633481 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2023). The message to be taken from these developments: all race-based programs and, by extension, potentially all gender-based programs—including ones that require or reward participation of Minority Business Enterprises (“MBE”) or Women Business Enterprise (“WBE”) in construction programs—currently stand on shaky ground. This post will explain the constitutional foundations at play, the decisions shaking things up, and why well-rounded dialogue is urgently needed to address the status of these programs before they’re dead in the water. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denise Farris Scrivener, Farris Legal Services LLC
Ms. Scrivener may be contacted at denise@farrislegal.net

---

Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The city of Fremont, Ohio and Arcadis have been sued by Trucco Construction. Trucco had been hired by the city to build a reservoir designed by Arcadis, the News-Messenger reports. Peter Welin, attorney for Trucco, said that he found “startling evidence of the company’s negligence” when he deposed Arcadis engineers. “This project could never be built the way they bid it.”

Their suit alleges that Arcadis and the city were aware that the site was not conducive to construction and also that Arcadis failed to be a neutral party in discussions between Trucco and the city regarding compensation.

Sam Wamper, an attorney for Fremont, said he was going to file a motion which would include “quite an interesting story,” but declined to elaborate.

Read the full story...

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

---

Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.

December 31, 2014 — Heather M. Anderson – Colorado Construction Litigation
In a recent case arising out of a denial of coverage for alleged construction defect claims concerning a pre-fabricated home, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado applied the 10th Circuit’s determination of what can constitute an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. See Wardcraft Homes, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4852117 (D. Colo. September 29, 2014). William and Grace Stuhr sued Wardcraft, which manufactured pre-fabricated homes at a facility in Fort Morgan, Colorado, because their home was not completed as scheduled and contained various defects. The Stuhrs filed suit against Wardcraft alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Wardcraft tendered the Stuhrs’ complaint to Employers Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”), which denied coverage under its policy and denied any duty to defend. According to EMC, the Stuhrs’ alleged construction defects were not property damages and there was no occurrence in connection with faulty workmanship. Approximately two and a half years after they filed their initial complaint, the Stuhrs filed an amended complaint. Wardcraft did not tender this amended complaint to EMC, and first informed EMC about the amended complaint about a year after it was filed. A month prior, Wardcraft settled with the Stuhrs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at Anderson@hhmrlaw.com

---

New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

September 23, 2019 — Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation Strategist
In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. TopBuild Home Servs., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69634 (April 24, 2019), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that the “lesser of two” doctrine applies to subrogation actions, thereby limiting property damages to the lesser of repair costs or the property’s diminution in value. In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., New York Central Mutual Insurance Company’s (New York Central) insureds, Paul and Karen Mazzola, suffered a fire to their home. After the fire, New York Central paid the Mazzolas $708,465.74 to repair the property. New York Central brought a subrogation action against TopBuild Home Services, Inc. (TopBuild), alleging that the fire was caused by negligent work performed by TopBuild. New York Central sought to recover the repair costs it paid to the Mazzolas. TopBuild conceded liability but disputed the proper measure of damages. TopBuild filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that under the “lesser of two” doctrine, New York Central could recover only the lesser of the costs to repair the property or the property’s diminution in value. TopBuild, therefore, asserted that New York Central was not entitled to the repair costs of $708,465.74 but, rather, could recover only the property’s decline in value following the fire – approximately $250,000.[1] In response, New York Central argued that New York’s “lesser of two” doctrine does not apply to subrogation actions because an insurance company cannot mitigate the payment it makes to its insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

---

California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Injured Worker Despite Contractor's Exclusion

August 05, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's finding that the policy covered a worker's injuries despite the Contractor's Exclusion. Cal. Spec. Insulation . Allied Work Surplus Lines, Ins. Co., 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 317 (Cal. Ct. App. May 17, 2024). Air Control Systems, Inc. was retained by a property owner to perform improvement work on a building. Air Control retained California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI) to install duct insulation. Jason Standiford, an Air Control employee, sure CSI, asserting negligence for injuries he suffered when he fell 16 to 20 feet after. A CSI employee drove a scissor lift into a ladder he was standing on. CSI was insured through a commercial general liability policy from Allied World. The policy included an endorsement titled "Bodily Injury to Any Employee or Temporary Worker of Contractors Exclusion." The Contractor Exclusion state the policy did not apply to "'Bodily injury' . . . to any 'employee' or 'ten,poary work' of any contractor or subcontractor arising out of in or the course of the rendering or performing services of any kind or nature by such contractor or subcontractor." Neither the endorsement nor the policy defined the term "contractor." 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

---