Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy

July 01, 2019 — Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
What do you do when your house falls out from underneath you? Over the last few years, homeowners in northeastern Connecticut have been suing their insurers for denying coverage for claims based on deteriorating foundations in their homes. The lawsuits, which have come to be known as the “crumbling concrete cases,” stem from the use of faulty concrete to pour foundations of approximately 35,000 homes built during the 1980s and 1990s. In order to save their homes, thousands of homeowners have been left with no other choice but to lift their homes off the crumbling foundations, tear out the defective concrete and replace it. The process typically costs between $150,000 to $350,000 per home, and homeowner’s insurers are refusing to cover the costs. As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Connecticut homeowners in both state and federal court. Of those cases, three related lawsuits against Allstate Insurance Company were the first to make it to the federal appellate level.1 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was tasked with deciding one common issue: whether the “collapse” provision in the Allstate homeowner’s policy affords coverage for gradually deteriorating basement walls that remain standing. The Allstate policies at issue were “all-risk” policies, meaning they covered “sudden and accidental direct physical losses” to residential properties. While “collapse” losses were generally excluded, the policies did provide coverage for a limited class of “sudden and accidental” collapses, including those caused by “hidden decay,” and/or “defective methods or materials used in construction, repair or renovations.” Covered collapses did not include instances of “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com

Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Big Builder, Meritage entered Atlanta through its acquisition of Legendary Communities for $130 million, “completing a two-year quest.” “Probably for about two years, we’ve been looking in the market, talking to builders, and studying the geography, and meeting different people to learn who the players are and learn about the area,” Meritage Homes chairman and CEO Steven J. Hilton told Big Builder. This acquisition makes Meritage Homes “the number one builder in the Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, S.C. market, owning more than 16 percent of the 2013 market share with 266 closings, according to Metrostudy data. It also owns almost seven percent of the market share in nearby Spartanburg, S.C. with 44 closings.” Legendary fits “in very nicely with what we do at Meritage,” Hilton said to Big Builder. “We’re a strong first and second move up builder, as are they at Legendary. It’s a very complementary fit between the two companies.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.K. to Set Out Plan for Fire-Risk Apartment Cladding Crisis

March 01, 2021 — Emily Ashton & Olivia Konotey-Ahulu - Bloomberg
The U.K. government will set out its plans for stripping cladding from potentially unsafe apartment blocks, more than three years after a fire at London’s Grenfell Tower killed 72 people. Reports suggest Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick will set out a package of measures amounting to billions of pounds when he makes a statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday. Ministers announced a 1.6 billion pound ($2.2 billion) “safety fund” to remove dangerous cladding last year but Jenrick is expected to announce additional support on top of this. The price for the repairs could be as high as 15 billion pounds, according to a parliamentary committee last June. Reprinted courtesy of Emily Ashton, Bloomberg and Olivia Konotey-Ahulu, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

April 28, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
It’s been the fodder of debate of philosophers, academics and the rest of us for ages:

Do we have free will or are our actions predetermined and the result of preceding events?
Are human beings fundamentally selfless or self preserving?
Coca-Cola or Pepsi?
iOs or android?

And for litigators and their clients, including us construction lawyers, arbitration or litigation? Or, in short, if a project goes sideways, in what forum will you resolve your dispute? It’s an important question the answer to which could mean the difference between winning or losing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Roof Mounted Solar Panels: Lower Your Risk of Fire

September 25, 2023 — The Hartford Staff - The Hartford Insights
As the federal government, individual states, businesses and consumers take steps to address climate change, the use of renewable energy – including roof-mounted solar panels – has steadily increased. Over the past decade, the use of solar energy solutions has grown by 33% annually. This is driven by tax-based incentives for clean energy, combined with installation costs that are down more than 50% from 10 years ago.1 As more companies execute climate-focused goals to limit greenhouse emissions, reduce their carbon-footprint and lower energy costs, the use of solar power for commercial buildings is likely to increase. Currently, it's estimated that only 3.5% of commercial buildings have rooftop solar panels, but 70% are potential targets for solar.2 We know the use of solar power can have positive impacts on the environment and generate long-term energy cost savings. However, there are several considerations and potential risks that commercial property owners and facilities managers should consider prior to investing in solar, says Tracey Greene, underwriting director for Middle and Large Commercial Real Estate at The Hartford. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

Japan Quake Triggers Landslides, Knocks Power Plant Offline

September 10, 2018 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
A magnitude 6.7 earthquake occurred on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido on Sept. 6, leaving at least seven dead and damaging buildings and structures in the region, including a 1,650MW coal-fired thermal power plant that was taken offline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Under California Contractor’s State License Law enumerated in Business and Professions Code Sections 7000 to 7191, a contractor may not “bring or maintain” any action for compensation for performing any act or contract for which a license is required unless the contractor was duly licensed “at all times” during performance. Bus & Prof Code Section 7031(a). What does this mean and who does it include? This is a question that often has to be answered on a case by case basis. Basically, California does not want unlicensed contractors to be able to get paid for work that should be performed by a licensed contractor. The law has set forth some general parameters. General contractors, subcontractors, and master developers must be licensed. However, suppliers, manufacturers, laborers and equipment lessors are exempt and do not need a contractor’s license. Essentially, those parties that merely furnish material or supplies without fabricating them into, or consuming them in the performance of work, do not need to be licensed. Bus & Prof Code Section 7052. There are sever fines and penalties for those who improperly perform construction work without a license. A contract between any contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor is a misdemeanor. Lack of a license bars all actions in law or in equity for collection of compensation for the performance of work requiring a license. There are very few exceptions to this rule. A “savvy” unlicensed contractor cannot simply avoid these requirements by “subbing” out all the work to licensed contractors. Any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may file a court action or cross-complaint to recover all payments made to the unlicensed contractor. In addition, a person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor is a victim of a crime and eligible for restitution of economic losses regardless of whether that person had knowledge that the contractor was unlicensed. Bus. & Prof Code Sections 7028, 7028.16. It goes without saying that performing work without a license on projects is a bad idea. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hunton Offers Amicus Support in First Circuit Review of “Surface Water” Under Massachusetts Law

August 01, 2023 — Michael S. Levine, Lorelie S. Masters & Janine A. Hanrahan - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Hunton’s insurance team has offered its support on behalf of amicus curie United Policyholders in a brief to the First Circuit concerning the meaning of “surface water” in the context of a broad, all-risk property insurance policy? This important question arose in a dispute between Medical Properties Trust (“MPT”), a real estate investment trust, and Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), its insurer, after water entered and destroyed Norwood Hospital. The water at issue entered the building after collecting on the surface of the building’s flat parapet roof. Zurich argued that because the water collected on the surface of the roof, the water met the meaning of the term “surface water,” as that term was used in the policy’s definition of “flood.” Flood coverage is subject to a $100 million sublimit, whereas the policy’s general limit is $750 million. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES