Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis

November 09, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
Insureds often request independent counsel when insurers agree to provide a defense subject to a reservation of rights, pursuant to which an insurer takes the position that certain damages may not be indemnifiable. Requests for independent counsel are often rooted in fear that a defense attorney who has a relationship with the insurer may be incentivized to defend the insured in a way that maximizes the potential for the insurer to succeed on its coverage defenses. As explained by the Illinois Supreme Court in Maryland Cas. Co. v. Peppers, 355 N.E.2d 24 (Ill. 1976), when a conflict of interest arises between an insurer and its insured, the attorney appointed by the insurer is faced with serious ethical questions and the insured is entitled to its own attorney. Illinois courts generally follow the rule that an insured is entitled to independent counsel upon a showing of an actual conflict. In Builders Concrete Servs., LLC v. Westfield Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 19 C 7792, 2020 WL 5518474 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently addressed a dispute between an insurer and its insured about independent counsel. Westfield insured Builders Concrete Services (BCS). Focus Construction hired BCS as a subcontractor to perform concrete work on a new apartment building. BCS’ work included pouring concrete for structural columns, one of which buckled and failed. BCS sued Focus Construction for withholding payment, and Focus Construction counter-sued for breach of contract and negligence relating to BCS’ alleged faulty work that caused the column to fall. Focus Construction’s counterclaim alleged that the column failure damaged other parts of the building on which Builders did not perform work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

Under the Hood of U.S. Construction Spending Is Revised Data

January 06, 2016 — Vince Golle – Bloomberg
Here’s one key takeaway from the Commerce Department’s report Monday on U.S. construction spending. The 0.4 percent decrease in November, which itself was weaker than the most pessimistic Bloomberg survey forecast, was accompanied by downward revisions to prior months. The combination suggests some economists may revise down their fourth-quarter GDP tracking forecasts. * October construction spending rose 0.3 percent, compared with a prior estimate of 1 percent, while September outlays advanced 0.2 percent versus a previous estimate of a 0.6 percent gain Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Vince Golle, Bloomberg

Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

July 14, 2016 — Paul R. Cressman, Jr. – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Blog
A recent Washington Court of Appeals opinion addressed the rights of a neighbor to destroy roots and branches on her property that belonged to trees located on an adjoining landowner’s property.[1] Mustoe had two large Douglas-fir trees located entirely on her property, about two and one-half feet from the property line with her neighbor Ma. Ma caused a ditch to be dug on her property along the border with Mustoe’s lot. The ditch was 18-20 inches deep. In the process, Ma exposed and removed the trees’ roots, leaving them to extend only three-four feet from the trunks of the trees. This resulted in a loss of nearly half of the trees’ roots, all from the south side, exposing them to southerly winds with no support. The damaged trees posed a high risk of falling on Mustoe’s home. The landscape value of the trees was estimated to be $16,418. The cost of their removal was estimated to be $3,913. Mustoe filed suit against Ma asserting that Ma had negligently, recklessly, and intentionally excavated and damaged her trees, along with other property, and also sought emotional distress damages. The trial court dismissed Mustoe’s suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ac-lawyers.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

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/12/23) – Airbnb’s Future in New York City, MGM Resorts Suffer Cybersecurity Incident, and Insurance Costs Hitting Commercial Real Estate

October 30, 2023 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, the FDIC handles the portfolio from Signature Bank, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funds a new center at Illinois, the Athletics take their next steps in their move to Las Vegas, and more!

For those looking to rent an Airbnb for future travel to New York City, it just became much harder with new rules taking effect on September 5th. (Natalie Lung, The Washington Post)
This past weekend MGM Resorts suffered a cybersecurity incident that affected some of the company’s systems with the extent of the incident still unknown. (ABC)
Among issues such as rent increases and general inflation, commercial real estate is also having to contend with rising insurance costs due to climate change. (Justin Worland, Time)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Sales of New Homes in U.S. Increased 5.4% in July to 507,000

August 26, 2015 — Shobhana Chandra – Bloomberg
Purchases of new homes in the U.S. rebounded in July, bolstering signs the real-estate market is picking up. Sales climbed 5.4 percent, the biggest gain this year, to a 507,000 annualized pace from a 481,000 rate in the prior month, a Commerce Department report showed Tuesday in Washington. The median forecast of 75 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for 510,000. Demand had declined 7.7 percent in June. Demand for new properties is likely to keep expanding amid strong employment, low borrowing costs and a lack of available existing homes from which to choose. The improving outlook may spur more residential construction, contributing to the economic expansion in the second half of the year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court of Appeal: Privette Doctrine Does Not Apply to Landlord-Tenant Relationships

March 20, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’ve talked a fair bit about the Privette doctrine which provides for a rebuttable presumption that a hirer is not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of hired parties. We’ve also talked about its two exceptions: (1) The Hooker exception which provides for liability if the hirer retained control over the work being performed, negligently exercised that control, and its negligent exercise of that control contributed to an employee’s injury; and (2) the Kinsman exception which provides for liability if the hirer knew or should have known of a concealed hazard, that the hired party did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the hirer failed to warn the hired party of the hazard. The Privette doctrine is not the end all be all of landowner liability, however, as discussed in Ramirez v. PK 1 Plaza 580 SC LP, 85 Cal.App.5th 252 (2022). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

March 14, 2018 — Shannon M. Warren – The Subrogation Strategist
On January 23, 2018, the Northern District of Indiana issued a decision that clarifies what constitutes spoliation of evidence under Indiana law. In Arcelormittal Ind. Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10141 (N.D. Ind.), the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the plaintiff intentionally spoliated critical evidence. The defendant sought dismissal of the action, asserting that the plaintiff intentionally discarded and lost important physical evidence within hours of a fire that occurred while the defendant’s employees were performing work at its facility. The decision underscores the importance of taking immediate action to properly identify and secure potentially material evidence in order to satisfy ones duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and avoid any spoliation defenses and associated sanctions. In Arcelormittal, the court initially considered whether to apply state or federal law when analyzing a litigant’s duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and determine if that party committed spoliation. Since the case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court held that Indiana state law governed the spoliation analysis. As noted by the court, under Indiana state law, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, altercation, or concealment of evidence” is considered to be spoliation. Thus, under Indiana law, a party who knew or should have known that litigation was imminent “may not lose, destroy or suppress material facts or evidence.” The plaintiff argued that Indiana law requires a showing of improper purpose or bad faith to establish that a litigant spoliated evidence. The Arcelormittal court rejected the plaintiff’s argument. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES