SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

August 31, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Skanska United States Bldg., No. 18-cv-11700-DLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95403 (Skanska), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether contractors on a construction job were additional insureds on the developer’s builder’s risk insurance policy. After a water loss occurred during construction, the builder’s risk insurance carrier paid its named insured for the resultant damage, and subsequently filed a subrogation action against two contractors. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the anti-subrogation rule barred the carrier from subrogating against them because they were additional insureds on the policy. The court found that based on the particular language of the additional insured provision in the policy, the defendants were not additional insureds for purposes of the subrogation action. Skanska arose from property damage that occurred during a construction project where Novartis Corporation (Novartis) endeavored to construct a biomedical research building in Cambridge, Massachusetts and retained Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska) as the general contractor. In turn, Skanksa hired J.C. Cannistraro, LLC (JCC) as a subcontractor. Novartis secured a builder’s risk insurance policy from Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Factory Mutual). The policy defined “Insured” as Novartis and its subsidiaries, partnerships and joint ventures that it controlled or owned. The policy included another provision, titled “Property Damage,” which stated that the policy “insures the interest of contractors and subcontractors in insured property… to the extent of the Insured’s legal liability for insured physical loss or damage to such property.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

New Green Standards; Same Green Warnings for Architects & Engineers (law note)

January 13, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
The newest version of the LEED ratings system, LEED v4, has officially been released. For a comparison of the major changes between LEED 2009 and LEEDv4, check out this downloadable form from the USGBC. As the folks at Schinnerer’s pointed out, there is one major change that is fraught with peril for design professionals– the requirement for increased transparency concerning the composition and performance requirements of composition materials. Notes the insurance carrier: “While design firms always had a level of responsibility for ongoing product research, the lack of standardized, affirmative industry data made it difficult for design firms and project owners to assess the impact of building materials on human health. “As with many aspects of sustainability in design and construction, the danger to design firms is likely to come from self-inflicted perils. When a firm accepts responsibility to ‘ensure that a project meets its goals by using the best products that align with project requirements,’ it is essentially giving the project owner a guarantee that is both beyond the firm’s control and uninsurable by any insurance carried by a firm.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback
Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

Preliminary Notice Is More Important Than Ever During COVID-19

June 01, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome Justin Gitelman. Justin is the Content Coordinator at Levelset, where over 500,000 contractors and suppliers connect on a cloud-based platform to make payment processes stress-free. Levelset helps contractors and suppliers get payment under control, and sees a world where no one loses a night’s sleep over payment. As the construction industry continues to adjust to the coronavirus and an uncertain future, contractors are struggling to get paid. During the COVID-19 pandemic, construction businesses across Virginia need to do everything they can to protect their payments, and get paid faster. One simple action that can help fight payment delays: sending preliminary notice on every job. Subcontractors and suppliers should send preliminary notices out to the GC, project owner, and/or lender at the start of every single project. These tools allow contractors to make themselves visible on crowded job sites, helping contractors get paid more quickly, and, in some cases, securing their right to file a mechanics lien or bond claim. Preliminary Notices in Construction The purpose of a preliminary notice is to allow each member of a construction project to know who you are and what work you’ll be performing. With coronavirus in mind, contractors can use preliminary notices to remind the hiring party of their payment expectations. When you submit a preliminary notice on every project, you’ll have legal protection in your corner while also giving yourself a greater opportunity to get paid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrissghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions

February 03, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Joella v. Cole, 2019 PA Super. 313, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered whether a tenant, alleged by the landlord’s property insurance carrier to have carelessly caused a fire, was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s policy. The court found that the tenant was an implied co-insured because the lease stated that the landlord would procure insurance for the building, which created a reasonable expectation that the tenant would be a co-insured under the policy. Since the tenant was an implied co-insured on the policy, the insurance carrier could not maintain a subrogation action against the tenant. This case confirms that Pennsylvania follows a case-by-case approach when determining whether a tenant was an implied co-insured on a landlord’s insurance policy. The Joella case stems from a fire at an apartment building in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The landlord’s property insurance carrier paid the landlord $180,000 to repair the damages resulting from the fire. In March 2018, the insurer brought a subrogation action against Annie Cole, a tenant in the building, alleging that Ms. Cole’s negligent use of an extension cord caused the fire. Ms. Cole raised the affirmative defense that she was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy. The subrogating insurer filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Ms. Cole’s defense. In response, Ms. Cole filed a cross motion for partial judgment, arguing that because the lease specified that the landlord would maintain fire insurance for the building, there was a reasonable expectation that she would be a co-insured on that policy. The trial court found in favor of Ms. Cole, holding that the landlord’s insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against her because she was an implied co-insured of the landlord’s insurance policy under the terms of the lease. The landlord’s insurer filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product

October 21, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The Alabama Supreme Court followed prior precedent and found that the contractor's faulty workmanship causing damage to his own product did not arise from an occurrence. Owners Ins. Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilder, LLC, 2013 Ala. LEXIS 122 (Ala. Sept. 20, 2013). The plaintiffs contracted with Carr to construct a new home. After completion of the home and taking occupancy, the plaintiffs noted several problems with the house related to water leaking through the roof, walls and floors, resulting in water damage to various areas of the house. The plaintiffs sued Carr and the case eventually went to arbitration. The arbitrator entered an award in favor of plaintiffs for $600,000. Owners filed an action against Carr for a declaratory judgment seeking to establish there was no coverage because the property damage did not arise from an occurrence. The trial court granted summary judgment to Carr. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

December 21, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's issuance of the insurer's motion for summary judgment, thereby rejecting the insureds' negligence per se claim for failure to pay benefits. Braun-Salinas v. Am Family Ins. Group, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19555 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2016). The insureds argued that Oregon recognized a negligence per se claim based on an insurer's failure to pay benefits in violation of the statutory standard under state law. Oregon appellate courts, however, only allowed a negligence per se claim only where a negligence claim otherwise existed. The Oregon courts had previously rejected a statutory theory, holding that a violation of the statute did not give rise to a tort action. 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

---

Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

May 30, 2018 — Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Blog
Federal Contractors—especially those engaging in FAR Part 15 direct contract negotiations—should make it a routine practice to timely request debriefings after the Contracting Agency excludes the bidder from the competitive range (“pre-award debriefing”) or after the Agency issues the award (“post-award debriefing”). Debriefings allow the Contractor to understand the evaluation process used by the Contracting Agency and to receive an assessment of how it fared in that evaluation. This is not a one-sided presentation as Contracting Agencies are required to answer the contractor’s relevant questions about the decision-making process. Properly run debriefings can be used to better tailor future bids and negotiations, as further marketing to the Contracting Agency for future awards, and, occasionally, to unearth grounds for a potential protest if any part of the evaluation process is out of sync with the FARs. In the event the contractor learns of a basis for protest at the debriefing, the deadline to file a protest begins running from the date of the debriefing—whether it was required or not. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

---

In Review: SCOTUS Environmental and Administrative Decisions in the 2020 Term

August 10, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Several decisions of interest were issued in the 2020 term, which stretched from October 2020 until early July 2021. This review will concentrate on environmental and administrative law cases. Texas v. New Mexico On December 14, 2020, the Court issued its ruling in an Original Action. Water is precious in the Pecos River Valley, and the distribution of water is governed by the Pecos River Compact. Here, Texas complained that New Mexico illegally was seeking delivery credits for evaporated water credits but the Court agreed that New Mexico was entitled to these credits under the provisions of the River Master’s Manual. Florida v. Georgia On April 1, 2021, in another waters right ruling on an Original Action filed in the Supreme Court, the Court rejected Florida’s claims that Georgia’s use of interstate waters harmed Florida’s businesses. Florida had to satisfy a heavy burden of proof, which it failed to do. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---