Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"

September 30, 2019 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In honor of Shark Week, that annual television-event where we eagerly flip on the Discovery Channel to get our fix of these magnificent (and terrifying!) creatures, I was inspired to write about the “predatory” practices we’ve encountered recently in our construction insurance practice. The more sophisticated the business and risk management department is, the more likely they have a sophisticated insurer writing their coverage. Although peaceful coexistence is possible, that doesn’t mean that insurers won’t use every advantage available to them – compared to even large corporate insureds, insurance companies are the apex predators of the insurance industry. In order to safeguard policyholders’ interests, most states have developed a body of law (some statutory, some based on judicial decisions) requiring insurers to act in good faith when dealing with their insureds. This is typically embodied as a requirement that the insurer act “fairly and reasonably” in processing, investigating, and handling claims. If the insurer does not meet this standard, insureds may be entitled to damages above and beyond that which they could otherwise recover for breach of contract. Proving that an insurer acted in “bad faith,” however, can be like swimming against the riptide. Most states hold that bad faith requires more than just a difference of opinion between insured and insurer over the available coverage – the policyholder must show that the insurer acted “wantonly” or “maliciously,” or, in less stringent jurisdictions, that the insurer was “unreasonable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Firms working on the Quincy Center redevelopment project in the Boston area are claiming that the developer has been slow to pay. Street-Works Development says that Twining Properties, a partner in the development, is in the process of paying off $1.9 million owed to construction companies. The project was put on hold when it was determined that funds were not available to build the initially planned 15-story, steel-framed apartment building as part of a residential, retail, and office complex. The residential portion will now be a 6-story, wood-framed building. One of the contractors has taken the first steps to placing a lien on another property owned by Street-Works. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nomos LLP Partners Recognized in Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

August 16, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Nomos LLP partners Garret Murai and Jennifer Tang have been recognized in Thompson Reuter’s 2021 Northern California Super Lawyers and 2021 Northern California Rising Start lists in the area of Construction Litigation. This is the eighth consecutive year for Garret on the Super Lawyers list and the fifth consecutive year for Jennifer on the Rising Star list. The Super Lawyers list recognizes no more than 5 percent of attorneys in each state. The Rising Stars list recognizes no more than 2.5 percent of attorneys in each state. To be eligible for inclusion in Rising Stars, a candidate must be either 40 years old or younger, or in practice for 10 years or less. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

January 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
If you are a construction attorney like me (or anyone that takes cases to court), you deal with statutes of limitation on a daily basis. These statutes seem pretty simple. A party has “X” amount of time in which to file its lawsuit after accural of the cause of action. In a breach of contract suit, the accrual is the date of breach. Easy, right? Wrong, at least in some circumstances. Take for example, the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. PAE Applied Techs., LLC out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this unpublished opinion the Court looked at “continuous breach” versus “series of separate breaches.” The basic facts are that in 2000 Flour entered into a contract with PAE whereby PAE requested and claims to have received consent from Flour to a 2.3% administrative cost cap on Flour’s work on an Air Force contract. Flour claimed that it did not agree to this cap. In 2002, Flour begain billing PAE for its costs plus the 2.3% administrative markup and billed in this fashion for the first full year. However, in subsequent years and for the next 11 years, Flour billed PAE at a higher markup rate than the 2.3%. PAE disputed the increased markup and paid Flour at the 2.3% rate. Flour periodically protested but made no move to court until it filed suit in March of 2016. After a bench trial, the district court found that Flour had agreed to the cap and found for PAE. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

The Burden of Betterment

February 23, 2017 — Ryan M. Charlson, Esq. - Florida Construction Law News
The concept of betterment has long been used by defendants in cases involving defective design or construction to limit the damages awarded to a plaintiff.[1] The theory behind betterment is that: “if in [the] course of making repairs [an] owner adopts a more expensive design, recovery should be limited to what would have been the reasonable cost of repair according to original design.”[2] Betterment is often raised as an affirmative defense, requiring a defendant to prove that the plaintiff has received a good or service that is superior to that for which the plaintiff originally contracted. A recent South Florida case seems, at first blush, to suggest the burden of establishing the value of betterments may fall to the plaintiff, although a closer reading indicates the decision is likely to have limited applicability. In Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. The City of Miami Beach, the Third District Court of Appeal was asked to review the damages award to the City for construction defects associated with the redesign and improvement of a park.[3] The completed project contained landscaping deficiencies, along with other “minor defects” in the playground’s construction.[4] After a unilateral audit, and without providing the contractor its contractually required opportunity to cure the defects, the City “removed, redesigned, and replaced the playground in its entirety.”[5] It did so despite no recommendation by the City’s own expert to perform such work.[6] During the bench trial, the “only measure of damages provided by the City was the costs associated with the planning, permitting, and construction of a park that is fundamentally different from the one it contracted with [the contractor] to build.”[7] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Charlson may be contacted at ryan.charlson@csklegal.com

Hunton’s Geoffrey Fehling Confirmed to DC Bar Foundation’s Young Lawyers Network Leadership Council

December 30, 2019 — Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
Congratulations to Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP insurance recovery lawyer, Geoffrey Fehling, on his confirmation by the DC Bar Foundation’s Board of Directors to the organization’s Young Lawyers Network Leadership Council. As the leading funder of civil legal aid in the District of Columbia, DCBF awards grants to the District’s legal services organizations that provide free civil legal services to low-income and underserved people in the District. Since its inception, DCBF has awarded more than $80 million in grants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

October 24, 2023 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that seven Partners from the Hawthorne, NY Office have been selected to the 2023 New York - Metro Super Lawyers list. In addition, one associate has been named to the 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers

Copernicus Gaza – Insurance Coverage
Jonathan Harwood – Professional Liability
Lisa Rolle – Construction Litigation
Christopher Russo – Professional Liability
Lisa Shrewsberry – Professional Liability
Stephen Straus – Insurance Coverage
Richard Traub – Insurance Coverage

2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers Rising Stars

Aris Rotella – Civil Litigation

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

Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

January 27, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reiterated that the duty to defend broadly requires a liability insurer to defend an entire lawsuit against its insured, even where only some of the allegations are potentially covered. The court further held that the insured has no obligation to apportion defense costs among multiple implicated policies. The decision, Selective Way Insurance Company v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., can be found here. The coverage litigation arose out of a construction defect case against a general contractor. The general contractor tendered the action to its insurer, Nationwide, which, in turn, filed a declaratory judgment action against the various insurers of construction project subcontractors that had named the general contractor as an additional insured. Ultimately, the court granted a summary judgment motion declaring that all of the subcontractors’ insurers had a duty to defend the general contractor “because the allegations in the underlying lawsuit raised claims that potentially arose from the [s]ubcontractors’ work at the [construction site].” All of the subcontractors’ insurers settled with Nationwide except for one, Selective Way; and the parties proceeded to a jury trial on various issues. The jury found for Nationwide on all issues. Selective Way appealed. Selective Way argued on appeal that even if some of the allegations were covered under its policy, it had no obligation to defend the general contractor because its insureds, the subcontractors, could not have been responsible for all of the losses given the nature of their work. Further, Selective Way contended that if it was responsible for defending the general contractor, it was not responsible for the entire defense, and the general contractor was responsible for apportioning the costs among the various subcontractors. The panel disagreed on both points. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES