SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Economic Loss Not Property Damage

November 04, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the insured subcontractor's economic losses did not amount to covered property damage. Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Capsco Industries, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23949 (5th Cir. Aug 12, 2019). Capsco Industries, Inc. was a subcontractor on the construction of a casino. Capsco subcontracted with Ground Control to install water, sewage, and storm-drain lines. Ground Control was terminated from the project by the general contractor for alleged safety violations and failed drug tests of its employees. Ground Control sued in state court against multiple parties, including Capsco, seeking payment for work on the project. The claims were dismissed on summary judgment because neither party had obtained the required certificates of responsibility from the state, making the parties' contract void. The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed the contract was void, but reversed and remanded for further proceedings based solely on theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. While the state case was on remand, Capsco's liability insurers, Greenwich Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company, filed a compliant for declaratory judgment in federal district court seeking a declaration that they did not owe a defense or indemnity to Capsco. The defendants were Ground Control, Capsco, the general contractor, and the casino owner. The latter two parties were dismissed. Ground Control counterclaimed for coverage of its claims against Capsco. The district court stayed proceedings until the state court litigation ended. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

March 16, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no duty to defend the subcontractor for alleged faulty workmanship in installing stone veneer at a condominium construction project. Quality Stone Veneer, Inc. v. Selective Ins.Co. of Am., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9393 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2017). Quality Stone Veneer (QSV) entered a subcontract with Mignatti Construction, the general contractor, for development of a condominium. QSV agreed to provide all the materials and labor related to the installation of stone veneer at the project. After construction began, the Association filed a complaint against Mignatti, claiming deficiencies in the construction of the furnace, ventilation, roofing, alarms, sprinklers, electrical and water systems. Mignatti filed a joinder complaint against QSV for contribution and/or indemnity for breach of warranty and negligence. 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

---

ASCE Statement on Devastating Tornado Damages Throughout U.S.

December 20, 2021 — Tom Smith, Executive Director - American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
WASHINGTON, DC. – We are deeply saddened by the tragic tornado storms that ravaged six states across the Midwest and Southeastern portions of the U.S. last Friday evening, resulting in loss of life in five of those six states. Even though warnings were issued throughout the region, storms of this magnitude can be difficult to prepare for. Nevertheless, as civil engineers, our mission is to continually advance the design and construction of safe, reliable, and resilient building structures and infrastructure systems to mitigate the damage caused by storms. ASCE 7 — a nationally-adopted, consensus-based engineering standard that is the primary reference of structural design requirements in all U.S. building codes — was recently updated to include a new chapter for tornado loads in the 2022 edition. The new tornado provisions in ASCE 7-22 were a result of a decade-long effort in partnership with the National Institute of Standards and Technology following the 2011 Joplin, MO Tornado. ASCE 7-22 provides updated design requirements for a variety of structures, including many of the types impacted by Friday's storms. In an effort to assist, the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE is currently offering free access to a report issued after the Joplin, MO tornado in 2011 that killed more than 150 people. Joplin, Missouri, Tornado of May 22, 2011: Structural Damage Survey and Case for Tornado-Resilient Building Codes presents the observations, findings, and recommendations of an engineering reconnaissance team that surveyed residential structures and schools in the tornado path shortly after the event. The EF 5 tornado cut a seven-mile swath through Joplin, Missouri; it destroyed more than 5,000 buildings and killed more than 150 people. We will continue to keep those who have been affected in our hearts and thoughts, and we share our heartfelt sympathies. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

“Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

April 20, 2017 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Recently, a reader reached out to me to ask about case examples of an engineer losing his insurance coverage because he agreed to a “heightened” or “best” standard of care. The reader stated that he was an insurance adviser who handled various construction professional coverages, and that in his experience it was very unusual to deny or limit damages because of a heightened standard of care. This comment led me to an informal survey of several insurance brokers that I deal with, and the general consensus is that instead of outright denying a claim, most E&O insurers will issue a “reservation of rights” letter. What that means is that the insurance company will defend the claim (i.e., pay for your lawyer to defend you and your Firm), but with the understanding that they are (potentially) denying any liability for any adverse money judgment against you. Inevitably, most such cases settle, but if they do not, the question then is whether the heightened duty created part of the damages. The insurer may ask to intervene in the lawsuit to ask the jury that question, in an effort to limit its share of the damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations

July 31, 2024 — Jane C. Luxton - Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (July 1, 2024) – In a much-anticipated decision, on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a sweeping opinion “overrul[ing]” a 40-year old precedent that required judges to defer to federal agency interpretations of their governing statutes when those laws were ambiguous or silent. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, et al. No. 22-451 (2024), overruling Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The decision means that courts will no longer give special weight to an agency’s view of the scope of its regulatory powers but must apply independent judgment in deciding “whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” Loper Bright, slip op. at 35. Taking pains to explain that the new ruling would not allow for reversals of cases previously decided under the Chevron doctrine, the Court left no doubt that, in the words of Justice Neil Gorsuch, “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.” Id., Gorsuch Concurring Opinion at 1. Writing for a 6-2 majority, Chief Justice Roberts forcefully condemned the Chevron-based principle that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the scope of its legal authority, rejecting the concept that agencies have any special expertise in statutory interpretation, a field reserved to the courts, not the executive branch, under Article III of the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

November 16, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
All Class A commercial contractors in Virginia are required to have a minimum level of Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage. As a general rule, this insurance is there for damage to property or persons arising from an “occurrence” that is covered by the policy. Many cases that are litigated relating to coverage for certain events under a CGL policy turn on the definition of “occurrence” and whether the event leading to a request for coverage constitutes an “occurrence.” A recent case in Fairfax County, Virginia, Erie Insurance Exchange v. Spalding Enterprises, et al., is just such a case. In the Spalding Enterprises case, the Court considered the following scenario. A homeowner, Mr. Yen contracted with Spalding Enterprises to fix some fire damage at his home. Spalding promised the repairs would be complete in October of 2019. However, after Mr. Yen paid a $300,000.00 deposit, Spalding Enterprises stated that the work would not be completed until November of 2019. Yen then fired Spalding Enterprises and sued for breach of contract, constructive fraud, and violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Spalding Enterprises sought coverage from Erie Insurance for the claim and Erie denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that the events alleged in the Complaint by Mr. Yen did not fall under the definition of “occurrence” in the CGL policy held by Spalding Enterprises. 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

---

California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

December 21, 2020 — Nicholas Korst - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent case in California, the Court of Appeals held that a surety who had issued a public works payment bond cannot rely on the “Pay-When-Paid” provision in the subcontract as a defense against the subcontractor’s claim against the payment bond.[1] The case was a public works project in Kern County, CA where the North Edwards Water District (the “District”) hired Clark Bros., Inc. (“Clark”) as the general contractor to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired subcontractor Crosno Construction (“Crosno”) to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. The subcontract included the following “pay-when-paid” provision, which provided a definition of “reasonable time”: If the Owner or other responsible party delays in making any payment to the Contractor from which payment to Subcontractor is made, Contractor and its sureties shall have a reasonable time to make payment. “Reasonable time” shall be determined according to the relevant circumstances, but in no event shall be less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against the Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment, including (but not limited to) mechanics lien remedies. (emphasis added). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nick Korst, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Korst may be contacted at nicholas.korst@acslawyers.com

---

New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

May 20, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (May 9, 2024) - New York Partners Jennifer Oxman and Andrew Harms recently secured dismissal of a personal injury plaintiff’s complaint on summary judgment in Queens County, with a state judge accepting their argument that a porter who allegedly tripped and fell on loose wood in a stairwell had no cause of action against the property owner because it was his job to clean the stairs in the first instance. The porter was not an employee of the property owner, but rather an employee of a property management company. Therefore, the workers compensation bar did not apply to the employee’s claims. In a four-page decision, Justice Chereé A. Buggs of Queens County Supreme Court found that plaintiff’s duties as a porter included cleaning the stairwell and that he saw and cleaned loose pieces of wood on occasions prior to his accident. Justice Buggs held that while the wood debris likely came from an “outside source”, i.e. a contractor performing work at a neighboring building, the source of the debris was not relevant. Rather, what mattered was the fact that the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped was “inherent in or related to” plaintiff’s work responsibilities. By contrast, Justice Buggs held that the contractor who allegedly was the source of the wood was not entitled to summary judgment under the same legal theory because it arguably caused and created the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---