Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

February 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
West Deptford, New Jersey township redevelopment counsel Mark Cimino had spent a year arguing that the city should receive a $4 million reduction in construction costs due to “inadequate documentation provided by the bank, as well as receipts showing disbursement had ‘improperly’ been made toward uses other than construction,” according to a December 30th 2013 article in the South Jersey Times. However, a state appellate court upheld the ruling that “the township had no basis” to request the reduction. Now, Committeewoman Denice DiCarlo is “seeking a $10,000 refund on the attorney fees paid” to Cimino, the South Jersey Times reported on February 6th. “This entire matter has been a monumental waste of tax dollars, and I am angry that the entire township committee was misled by Mr. Cimino and induced to believe we had any reasonable chance of recovering loan proceeds from this lawsuit,” DiCarlo stated in a letter to Mayor Raymond Chintall. Not all committee members agree with DiCarlo. Committeeman Sam Cianfarini told South Jersey Times that “he still believed Fulton Bank owed it to West Deptford to answer for any funds put toward anything other than construction.” Cimino declared “that both the lawsuit and appeal were valid,” according to the February 6th article. He “accused DiCarlo of ‘playing politics.’” Read the full story, December 30th Article... Read the full story, February 6th Article... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hawaii Supreme Court Reaffirms an "Accident" Includes Reckless Conduct, Finds Green House Gases are Pollutants

November 18, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Answering certified questions from the federal district court, the Hawaii Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior holding that reckless conduct is an "occurrence' or accident. The court further held that green house gas (GHG) emissions were pollutants under liability policies. Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA., et al., 2024 Haw. LEXIS 179 (Haw. Oct. 7, 2024). [Disclosure - our office was co-counsel on an amicus brief in this case filed on behalf of the United Policyholders]. The City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui sued several fossil fuel companies, including Aloha Petroleum, Ltd., for climate change-related harms. The suits alleged that the fossil fuel industry knew beginning in the 1960s that its products would cause catastrophic climate change. Rather than mitigate their emissions, defendants concealed their knowledge of climate change, promoted climate science denial, and increased their production of fossil fuels. Defendants' actions, the complaints alleged, increased carbon emissions, which caused significant damage to the counties. 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

Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

June 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are times where being too darn cute with your pleading allegations is unnecessary and does not work. But, the point is really that the cuteness is unnecessary. In a Miller Act payment bond dispute in Boneso Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc., 2018 WL 2387833 (N.D.Cal. 2018), a claimant asserted claims against a Miller Act payment bond surety for breach of the payment bond, breach of a subcontract, open account, and account stated. The question is why would the claimant sue the payment bond surety for breach of subcontract (when the subcontract was not with the surety), and open account and account stated. I have no clue, other than such claims appeared quite unnecessary when the claimant asserted an action on the Miller Act payment bond (which is what the surety is liable under — actions under the statutory payment bond). Such claims were dismissed. And, they should have been. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

August 03, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai has been recognized as a 2022 Northern California Super Lawyers honoree in the area of Construction Litigation. This is the ninth consecutive year that he has been recognized by Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers, an annual listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and personal achievement, is limited to no more than five percent (5%) of lawyers in a state who are selected through a multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent research evaluation and peer reviews by practice area. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

August 14, 2018 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara
How long does a civil lawsuit take? One common question among parties to a civil lawsuit, whether a plaintiff or defendant, is how long will it take to reach a resolution? The answer is tricky. The time it takes to resolve a civil lawsuit is highly dependent on various factors including the complexity of the matter and the parties’ willingness to settle. At the outset, parties to a civil case may resolve the matter at any time by mutual agreement (i.e., settlement). In that case, the parties draft a Stipulation and Order outlining the terms of the agreed settlement and submit the document to the judge for approval. Absent of any glaring inequity in the terms of the Stipulation, the judge will typically approve of the parties’ settlement, and the matter will be deemed resolved (either in whole or in part, depending on the case, the terms of the settlement and indemnity agreement). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

Congratulations to Partner Alex Giannetto for Being Named to San Diego Business Journal’s Top 100 Leaders in Law List

December 03, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Partner Alexander Giannetto for being selected as a “2024 Leaders of Influence in Law” by the San Diego Business Journal! To read and download the SDBJ publication, please click here. Alex Giannetto is a managing partner with Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O’Meara LLP’s San Diego office. He has extensive experience in all aspects of civil litigation handling liability matters including slip and falls, catastrophic injuries, wrongful death, traumatic brain injuries, landslides, and construction claims. He has obtained favorable trial results defending clients on personal injury and premises matters in San Diego and Los Angeles. He also has appellate experience. He is an AV-rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell who has been voted Best of the Bar in San Diego as well as a Top Lawyer in San Diego. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

June 08, 2020 — Gregory S. Capps & Michael E. DiFebbo - White and Williams LLP
On April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that held a policyholder is entitled to access available excess coverage under any excess policy once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court of California, case number S244737. In its unanimous decision adopting this “vertical exhaustion” requirement, the court rejected the “horizontal exhaustion” rule urged by the policyholder’s excess insurers, under which the policyholder would have been able to access an excess policy only after it had exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. In 1990, Montrose sought coverage under primary policies and multiple layers of excess policies issued for periods from 1961 through 1985 for environmental damage liabilities arising from its production of insecticide in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. The ongoing dispute currently arises out of Montrose’s Fifth Amended Complaint which was filed in 2015 seeking declarations concerning exhaustion and the manner in which Montrose may allocate its liabilities across the policies. Each of the excess policies at issue contained a requirement of exhaustion of underlying coverage. The various policies described the applicable underlying coverage in four main ways: (1) some policies contained a schedule of underlying insurance listing all of the underlying policies in the same policy period by insurer name, policy number, and dollar amount; (2) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and a schedule of underlying insurance on file with the insurer; (3) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and identified one or more of the underlying insurers; and (4) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance that corresponds with the combined limits of the underlying policies in that policy period. The excess policies also provided, in various ways, that “other insurance” must be exhausted before the excess policy can be accessed. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Michael E. DiFebbo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. DiFebbo may be contacted at difebbom@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Con Edison ("Con Ed") was unsuccessful in arguing for defense costs that had already been paid by other insurers. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121573 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 9, 2015). Team, Inc. was under contract with Con Ed to provide repairs to the steam system running below the streets of New York City. The contract required Team to indemnify Con Ed for all claims resulting from personal injury or property damage connected to Team's work. Team also obtained a CGL policy naming Con Ed as an additional insured. The policy was to provide primary coverage. Any insured was responsible for the first $250,000 of costs for investigation and/or defense. On July 1, 2007, a steam distribution main, on which Team had finished working, ruptured, creating a huge crater and sending steam and debris, including asbestos insulation, into the surrounding area. The rupture caused substantial damage to nearby buildings, vehicles and underground infrastructure. It also caused personal injury, including two individuals in a tow truck that fell into the crater and a woman who suffered a fatal heart attack while running from the explosion. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES