SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

A “Flood” of Uncertainty; Massachusetts SJC Finds Policy Term Ambiguous

August 26, 2024 — Michael S. Levine & Torrye Zullo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The highest court in Massachusetts recently held that term “Flood” and the associated phrase “surface waters,” as used in two all-risk insurance policies, is ambiguous in the context of water that accumulated on a parapet roof and rooftop courtyard, thereby negating the insurers’ attempt to limit coverage to a sublimited coverage for “Flood.” Background In June 2020, a severe storm caused damage to Norwood Hospital, owned by Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (“MPT”) and leased to Steward Health Care System (“Steward”), the policyholders. The relevant portion of the damage included damage from rain that accumulated on the rooftop courtyard and seeped into the interior of the building causing damage to the building and its contents. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Torrye Zullo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Zullo may be contacted at tzullo@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

September 03, 2015 — Stephen A. Sunseri – Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP
August 26, 2015 - The Fifth Appellate District ruled SB800 (California's "Right to Repair Act" [the "Act"]) provides the sole remedy for homeowners in construction defect actions. The court found "no other cause of action is allowed to recover for repair of the defect itself or for repair of any damage caused by the defect." (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court of California (Aug. 26, 2015, No. F069370) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2015 WL 5029324].) The court issued a blistering criticism of the Fourth Appellate District's prior opinion in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which severely limited the reach of the Act to actions not involving property damage and allowing property damage claims to proceed freely under common law without any constraints posed by the Act. In McMillin, the court reviewed whether a homeowner was required to follow the Act's prelitigation procedures even after dismissing a cause of action arising under the Act. In deciding the issue, the court quoted directly from the first line of the Act (Civ. Code § 896) and found "[i]n any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction … , the claimant's claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of" the standards set out in the Act. The court recognized the statutory exceptions to this rule, such as for claims arising under contract, or any action for fraud, personal injuries, or statutory violations. (Civ. Code., § 943.) However, this result directly conflicts with the Fourth Appellate District's decision in Liberty Mutual, which found homeowners can circumvent the entire Act by simply alleging property damage claims. McMillin rejects Liberty Mutual's "reasoning and outcome" as being inconsistent with the express language of the Act. McMillin found that Liberty Mutual failed to fully analyze the statutory language of the Act, which (on its face) limits any action for construction deficiencies to the requirements of the Act. McMillin concludes the Legislature intended that all construction defect actions (for new residences sold on or after January 1, 2003), are subject to the requirements of the Act, including the prelitigation procedures, regardless of whether a complaint expressly alleges a cause of action under the Act or not. McMillin is a great victory for homebuilders, but battle lines are now clearly drawn between the two appellate districts. McMillin directly conflicts with Liberty Mutual, and because of this conflict, the issue will need to be resolved by the California Supreme Court. Until such review is granted, the conflict will remain and trial courts will likely continue to conflate the issue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP
Mr. Sunseri may be contacted at ssunseri@gdandb.com

---

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/20/24) – Construction Backlog Falls, National Association of Realtors Settle Litigation, and Commercial Real Estate Market’s Effect on City Cuts

April 15, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, bad loans outweigh loss reserves at top six U.S. banks, the FCC announces a proposed rule aimed at “bulk billing,” office-to-multifamily conversion projects grow in major metro cities, and more!

• The National Association of Realtors has agreed to settle litigation that accused them of artificially inflating real estate commissions – a major decision that could reshape the housing market for buyers, sellers and agents. (Rachel Siegel, The Washington Post)
• An NYU professor considers the positives and negatives of cities cutting services or raising other kinds of taxes to offset the continued faltering of the commercial real estate market. (Alan Rappeport, The New York Times)
• Construction backlog fell in February for every size of contractor except for those with under $30 million in annual revenue, while, over the past year, the largest contractors – those with greater than $50 million in revenue – have experienced the greatest decline in backlog. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive).

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

---

Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

February 28, 2018 — Sarah K. Carpenter – Smith Currie Publications
The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) governs monetary and non-monetary disputes arising out of contracts or implied-in-fact contracts between the federal government and contractors. Because the CDA is an exclusive remedy, it is important that contractors be wary of the many pitfalls that may be encountered by a contractor seeking to assert a claim against the government under the CDA. The pitfalls faced by a contractor under the CDA can arise before a contractor becomes aware of a potential claim. Pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 43.204(c), a contracting officer should include in any supplemental agreement, including any change order, a Contractor’s Statement of Release which requires a contractor to execute a broad release of the government from any and all liability under the contract. As a result of this FAR provision, in executing a routine change order, a contractor may inadvertently release its right to pursue a potential claim under the CDA. A contractor should always review any release language prior to executing a supplemental agreement or change order with the government. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com

---

Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

March 09, 2020 — Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

---

Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

July 27, 2020 — Daniel F. Fears & Raymond J. Nhan - Payne & Fears
Businesses contemplating moving to a virtual workplace in this post-COVID-19 world must consider the legal ramifications of such decisions. Virtual workplaces may provide businesses with many benefits, such as cost savings, access to a more geographically diverse worker pool and the possibility of more flexible employment relationships. But a virtual workplace may also include hidden employment-related issues, costs, and traps. This is especially so for California-based companies. This article identifies some of the significant employment-law issues related to transitioning to a virtual workplace. Specifically, this article analyzes three scenarios: (1) employers seeking to have their workers continue working from home; (2) workers desiring to continue working from home — and specifically, seeking to work outside of California; and (3) the hiring of new employees. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. Fears, Payne & Fears and Raymond J. Nhan, Payne & Fears Mr. Fears may be contacted at dff@paynefears.com Mr. Nhan may be contacted at rjn@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

December 04, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Back in February, I discussed a case relating to indemnity and ambiguity. The opinion in that case, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al., allowed a breach of contract and indemnity claim to move forward despite the fact that conflicting term sheets between the plaintiff and defendant could have been read to violate Virginia law by requiring indemnity for English’s own negligence. In other words, the ambiguity worked in English’s favor (though that is not something to count on). The Court did not however address whether there was any negligence on English’s part and if there was, what was the contractual effect. I’ll bet you were wondering what happened later in that case. Well, here’s the answer. In a subsequent opinion, the Court looked at the same ambiguous and conflicting term sheets between and among those defendants that were required to provide quality assurance services for the construction of a bridge in western Virginia. For the full procedural and factual analysis, be sure to read the full memorandum opinion linked above. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

California Condo Architects Not Liable for Construction Defects?

May 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Law360 reported that attorneys for the architects of a San Francisco, California condominium complex told the California Supreme Court that the designers “can’t be held liable for construction defects that caused units to overheat” and urged “the panel to reverse a lower court's ruling that the architects owed a duty of care to the condos’ buyers.” The California appeals court ruling was based on California’s Right to Repair Act, however, “that law doesn’t apply to condo conversions.” The architects argued that since Beacon was “designed and originally rolled out as rental apartments before the units were sold as condos” the Right to Repair Act doesn’t apply. However, Beacon Residential Community Association’s attorney Robert Riggs of Katzoff & Riggs “argued that the architects had a ‘cradle to grave’ involvement in the development of the Beacon.” Riggs stated, “They designed a very large building with essentially no ventilation system, along with windows that don't open.” According to Law360, “[t]he justices took the arguments under submission and did not indicate which way they would rule.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---