SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

June 28, 2013 — David McLain
As anyone involved in construction knows, one of the most heavily used forms for tracking insurance information during the subcontracting phase of a project is the Acord Certificate of Liability Insurance. General contractors often require subcontractors to provide these ubiquitous forms as evidence that the subcontractor maintains adequate insurance or insurance which complies with the requirements of the subcontract. Unfortunately, experience has shown that the Acord forms being used today are insufficient sources of the information needed by the developer and general contractor. Historically, developers and GCs would require Acord forms to ensure that a subcontractor had a CGL insurance policy, with sufficient limits, and which named them as additional insureds. More recently, developers and GCs took the additional step of requiring a confirmation on the Acord forms that they were named as additional insureds for both ongoing and completed operations. This is important because coverage for ongoing operations only provides coverage during the construction process. Once the homes are put to their intended use, developers and GCs must be named as additional insureds for completed operations also in order to avail themselves of the benefits of the policy. Unfortunately, this is where the evolution of the use of the Acord forms ended, resulting in a failure to provide sufficient information to protect developers and GCs from the unknown. My firm has had a rash of recent experience where our clients have not obtained the benefit of additional insured coverage for which they bargained because they relied on Acord forms which failed to provide sufficient information to allow them to protect themselves from insufficient insurance coverage on the part of the subcontractors with which they did business. For example, in one recent case a homeowners association alleged insufficient grading and drainage away from the homes within a development built by one of our clients. In reviewing the insurance information from the construction files, we found the Acord forms from the excavating company that performed all of the grading work around the homes. To our delight, the Acord form listed our client as an additional insured for both ongoing and completed operations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
David M. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

In the case Antangan v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership (Cal. App., 2012), Plaintiffs appealed “an order vacating a judgment and entering a modified judgment in their construction defect action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership,” while the Defendant, Shea Homes Limited Partnership (Shea Homes) appealed “an order of the judicial referee denying its motion to strike and tax costs.”



On the Antagon issue, the appeals court concluded that “the trial court did not err by vacating and modifying its judgment so that the cost of referee’s fees would be equally divided by the parties and consistent with a prior stipulation they filed in court.”



On the Shea Homes issue, the appeals court concluded: “1) the judicial referee did not err by ruling that plaintiffs’ offers to compromise (§ 998) were validly served on Shea Homes’ counsel, 2) the offers substantially complied with statutory requirements, 3) the offers were not required to be apportioned, and 4) the referee’s award of $5,000 as costs for a person assisting plaintiffs’ counsel was not an abuse of discretion.” The appeals court affirmed the judgment.



Here is a brief history of the trial case: “Plaintiffs Chito Antangan, Jimmy Alcova and other homeowners brought an action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership for damages alleging that the properties they purchased from these ‘developer defendants’ were defective. Plaintiffs claimed numerous construction defects required them ‘to incur expenses’ for ‘restoration and repairs’ and the value of their homes had been diminished.”



In response, Shea Homes filed a motion for an order to appoint a judicial referee. The motion was granted and it was ruled that “a referee would ‘try all issues’ and ‘report a statement of decision to this court.’”



On May 10, 2010 the judicial referee (Thompson) “awarded plaintiffs damages and various costs, and ruled that ‘Shea Homes shall bear all of the Referee’s fees.’” The latter ruling would become a matter for contention later on.



In July of 2010, the plaintiffs “sought, among other things, $54,409.90 for expert fees, and $14,812.50 for the services of Melissa Fox for ‘exhibit preparation & trial presentation.’ Shea Homes filed a motion to strike and/or tax costs claiming: 1) Fox was a paralegal, 2) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney’s fees, and 3) the fees for Fox’s services were an indirect and improper method to obtain attorney’s fees. The referee disagreed and awarded $5,000 for Fox’s services. The referee also ruled that plaintiffs had properly served valid offers to compromise (§ 998) on Shea Homes’ counsel in 2009. He said those offers to defendants in the case at that time did not have to be apportioned.”



“Antangan contends the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment, which ordered Shea Homes to pay all the referee’s fees. We disagree.”



Antagon contended that the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment regarding Shea Homes paying the referee’s fees. The appeals court disagreed: “A trial court has inherent authority to vacate or correct a judgment that is void on its face, incorrect, or entered by mistake. (§ 473; Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998),67 Cal.App.4th 1228; Olivera



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Dispute Over Exhaustion of Primary Policy

May 20, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a dispute between the excess and primary carriers, the Fifth Circuit determined the primary policy was exhausted, triggering coverage under the excess policy. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arch Spec. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6627 (5th Cir. April 21, 2015). Amerisure issued a CGL policy to Admiral Glass & Mirror Co. The policy provided excess over any coverage under a controlled insurance program policy. Arch issued an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) policy to Endeavor Highrise, LP and to its contrators and subcontractors for bodily injury and property damage arising out of the construction of the Endeavor Highrise. Admiral was a subcontractor insured under the OCIP. The OCIP had combined bodily injury and property damage limits of $2,000,000 per occurrence, a general aggregate limit of $2,000,000 and a products-completed operations aggregate limit of $2,000,000. The OCIP contained a Supplementary Payments provision which provided that Arch would pay "[a]ll expenses we incur" in connection with any covered claim, and that "[t]hese payments will not reduce the limits of insurance." Endorsement 16, however, expressly deleted and replaced this statement with: "[supplementary payments] will reduce the limits of insurance." The OCIP also provided that Arch's duty to defend ended "when we have used up the applicable limit of insurance in the payment of judgments or settlements." 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

---

Construction Industry Survey Says Optimism Hits All-Time High

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Nashville Business Journal reported that “construction optimism has been growing exponentially since it hit an all-time low in 2009.” Furthermore, “Wells Fargo's 2014 Construction Industry Forecast saw the Optimism Quotient rise to an all-time high of 124 after a survey that was performed in January.” Reasons for the rise, according to Wells Fargo National Sales Manager John Crum, include “more capital available from banks, more public jobs and state and local governments being able to shore up their money supplies,” as quoted by the Nashville Business Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Biggest U.S. Gas Leak Followed Years of Problems, State Says

June 10, 2019 — Mark Chediak & Edvard Pettersson - Bloomberg
The worst natural gas leak in U.S. history, which broke out at a Sempra Energy storage field near Los Angeles almost four years ago, was caused by corrosion, according to a report commissioned by California regulators. The rupture of a 7-inch (18-centimeter) well casing at Sempra Energy’s Aliso Canyon storage complex was due to “microbial corrosion” brought on by contact with groundwater, an independent analysis conducted by Blade Energy Partners and commissioned by two state agencies found. The report also concluded there had been more than 60 leaks in the field dating back to the 1970s, and Sempra didn’t carry out detailed inspections after they occurred, the California Public Utilities Commission and Department of Conservation said in a joint statement. The company’s Southern California Gas lacked “any form of risk assessment” to manage the integrity of its wells and hadn’t established systematic practices to protect against corrosion and monitor well pressure, the agencies said. Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg and Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Kahana Feld LLP Senior Attorney Rachael Marvin and Partner Dominic Donato Obtain Complete Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Labor Law Claims on Summary Judgment

August 19, 2024 — Rachel Marvin - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld attorneys Rachael Marvin and Dominic Donato secured summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 claims asserted against their client, a general contractor of a housing project in Orange County, New York. The case involved a construction accident in which plaintiff fell while traversing a ramp, which was placed across an eight-foot-deep excavation trench. Plaintiff was employed by a subcontractor and was part of a crew performing the framing work on the project. The accident occurred when he exited his work area by walking across a ramp that was placed across the excavated trench, when the ramp gave way and plaintiff fell into the excavation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rachel Marvin, Kahana Feld
Ms. Marvin may be contacted at rmarvin@kahanafeld.com

---

Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

October 19, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Just because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.” Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

January 21, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (No. G054522, filed 12/11/18), a California appeals court held that a developer’s failure to allege the amounts of damages sought in its cross-complaint rendered default judgments against a subcontractor void and, therefore, unenforceable against the subcontractor’s insurers in a direct action under Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2). Yu, the owner, hired ATMI to develop a hotel. ATMI subcontracted with Fitch to perform stucco and paint work. Yu sued ATMI for construction defects and the developer cross-complained against its subcontractors, including Fitch, for breach of contract; warranty; indemnity, etc. Yu’s operative complaint prayed for damages “in an amount not less than $10,000,000, according to proof.” ATMI’s cross-complaint stated that it incorporated the allegations of Yu’s complaint “for identification and informational purposes only,” but “does not admit the truth of any allegations contained therein.” The cross-complaint also prayed for damages with respect to the various causes of action “in an amount according to proof.” Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---