Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Federal District Court Addresses Anti-concurrent Cause Language in Property Policy

February 04, 2025 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Surchi1, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227796 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed a carrier’s obligation to cover costs associated with remediating water-related damage to insured property. In July 2022, the insured property experienced water-related damage and resulting repair costs. A claim was submitted for coverage under a property policy issued by Travelers. Travelers denied the claim and the insured initiated an action against Travelers seeking coverage. During the litigation Travelers maintained its position that it was not obligated to cover the water-related damage, because (1) under the policy, Travelers is not obligated to cover damage caused by surface water, even if surface water contributed only in part to the damage, and (2) the pleadings irrefutably establish that surface water contributed, at least in part, to the property damage. The insured took the contrary view arguing that Travelers was obligated to cover water-related damage (1) because the damage was the result of a water or sewage backing up or overflowing from sewers, and (2) this obligation remains, even if surface water contributed in part to the damage. The court began with a review of the relevant policy language. Under the policy, Travelers "will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by ... surface water." At the same time, under a change endorsement to the policy, Travelers agreed to cover "direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the described premises caused by or resulting from water or sewage that backs up or overflows from a sewer, drain, or sump." In light of this language, the parties dispute centered on whether Travelers is obligated to cover damages caused concurrently by surface water (an excluded peril) and by water or sewage that backs up or overflows from a sewer, drain, or sump (a covered peril). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property

January 27, 2020 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
For subrogation practitioners dealing with an installation-based statute of repose, knowing what is an improvement to real property is the first battle in what can, but does not have to be, a long fight. Like many other states, Tennessee’s statute of repose bars claims based on improvements to real property. Tennessee’s statute of repose runs four years after substantial completion of the improvement. See Tennessee Code Ann. § 28-3-202. In the case of Maddox v. Olshan Found. Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E A, 2019 Tenn.App. LEXIS 464, 2019 WL 4464816, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee examined whether or not the work done by the defendant, Olshan Foundation Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E.A. (Olshan) — which addressed bowing walls, cracks in the foundation and walls and water intrusion — qualified as improvements to real property for the purposes of the statute of repose. The court held that the work by Olshan essentially amounted to repairs, and did not qualify as improvements to real property. In Maddox, the plaintiff, Rachel Maddox (Maddox), noticed cracking in her home in 2005 and hired Olshan to assess the issue and conduct necessary repairs. Olshan made several recommendations and the parties agreed on Olshan’s proposal for the price of $27,000. From their initial work in 2005 until late 2011, Olshan visited the property several times to address ongoing structural issues with the home. Eventually, eight months after Olshan told Maddox they could not fix the house and failed to return her phone calls, Maddox filed suit, alleging fraud against the company. After a three-day bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff for $187,000, plus $15,0000 in punitive damages. Among other holdings, the court rejected Olshan’s statute of repose defense. Olshan appealed, raising the statute of repose issue again. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

March 08, 2011 — Colorado Construction Litigation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently concluded that the “owned property exclusion” applied to bar coverage for claims of property damage. See Panico v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2011 WL 322830 (10th Cir. 2011). In Panico, the plaintiffs sold property in Aspen, Colorado to the Taylors, who sued the Panicos upon discovering the property was not as represented. After refusing to defend, the Panicos sued State Farm for breach of contract. The district court concluded that the Taylors’ claims were not covered under the Panicos insurance policies and granted summary judgment in State Farm’s favor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Mr. Panico built the house on the property as well as several additions to the house. As the Taylors lived in Florida, they primarily relied on their real estate agent and an inspector to ensure the property was acceptable. According to their complaint, the Taylors discovered that the house was “virtually uninhabitable due to serious design and construction defects, mold, rodents, and drainage problems.” Id. at *1. In their complaint, the Taylors asserted three claims for relief against the Panicos based upon misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment about the condition of the property.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Ms Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

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

Court Rules Planned Development of Banning Ranch May Proceed

June 10, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (filed 5/20/2015, No. G049691), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, held the Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of Newport Beach for the partial development of Banning Ranch complied with California environmental protection statutes and local ordinances. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), a city desiring to approve or carry out a project that may have significant effect on the environment must prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) designed to provide the public with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project will have on the environment. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for heightened protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (“ESHA”) defined as any “area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.” In 2006, the City of Newport Beach adopted a General Plan for the physical development of the city. The plan specifically identifies Banning Ranch as having significant value as a wildlife habitat and open space resource for citizens. The general plan includes a primary goal of complete preservation of Banning Ranch as open space. To the extent the primary goal cannot be achieved, the plan identifies a secondary goal allowing limited development of Banning Ranch “to fund preservation of the majority of the property as open space.” The plan also requires the City to coordinate any development with the state and federal agencies. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

That Boilerplate Language May Just Land You in Hot Water

December 17, 2015 — Kevin Brodehl – California Construction Law Blog
The following post originally appeared in my partnerKevin Brodehl‘s informative blog, Money and Dirt. If you’re involved in real estate investment, development and/or secured lending in California, it’s a must read. While Kevin’s post below discusses a case involving a real estate purchase agreement, it applies equally to construction contracts, perhaps even more so, since I can’t think of any other type of contract in which indemnity and integration clauses are as common, or as integral. Almost all real estate purchase and sale agreements contain provisions relating to integration and indemnity. In the “boilerplate” worldview, these provisions are standard, generic, and basically all the same — integration clauses prohibit extrinsic evidence that would contradict the terms of the agreement, and indemnity clauses force the seller to protect the buyer from third party claims arising after closing. But a recently published opinion by the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division Three in Santa Ana) — Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grunman Systems Corp. — clarifies that integration and indemnity clauses can have vastly different effects depending on how they are drafted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Brodehl, California Construction Law Blog
Mr. Brodehl may be contacted at kbrodehl@wendel.com

Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

November 13, 2023 — Yaron Shaham - Kahana Feld
In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com

4 Ways to Mitigate Construction Disputes

March 20, 2023 — Bill Shaughnessy - ConsensusDocs
Resolving construction disputes in litigation (court or arbitration) can be expensive and may drag on for years. Most disputes could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, had the parties (both owners and contractors) identified contract risks during negotiations and been more proactive in communicating the risks during execution of the work. This article highlights four practical risk management approaches that help all parties focus on their mutual interest in close coordination and clear communication at the beginning of the project as well as throughout performance:

Identifying and allocating risks;
Accurate scheduling;
Clear project documentation and communication; and
Real-time dispute resolution.

The intent of these techniques is not to shift legal obligations or risks. Rather, the intent is to keep project personnel and project management for all the participants focused on communicating and working together, including responsibly confronting real problems to avoid or mitigate their impact. Allocating risks, scheduling, project documentation and communication, and real-time dispute resolution are independently relevant on a bilateral basis between the owner, designer, and the various contractors. These approaches and their diligent execution by the parties during construction contribute far more to a successful project than anything lawyers and claims consultants can contribute in after-the-fact legal proceedings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com

Congratulations to San Diego Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy for Obtaining a Complete Defense Verdict!

November 13, 2023 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy just concluded a 4-week trial defending a local renowned hotel in San Diego. Plaintiff alleged premises liability against BWB&O’s client arguing plaintiff was injured while riding in an elevator due to alleged negligent maintenance and inspection. Plaintiff brought in a “hired gun” elevator expert from Missouri and sought $25 million in damages for two fractured ankles, a compound tibia fracture, and lifelong CRPS/PTDS/anxiety. BWB&O argued any injuries sustained were a direct result of Plaintiff’s actions. After a passionate and powerful closing argument by Mr. Salem, attacking the foundation of Plaintiff’s expert’s opinions and presenting vigilance of the hotel in the safety of its guests, the jury unanimously ruled in BWB&O’s client’s favor. Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES