Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

CGL Coverage for Liquidated Damages and the Contractual Liability Exclusion

October 09, 2023 — Stu Richeson - The Dispute Resolver
Liquidated delay damages are common in construction contracts and are generally imposed when a contractor fails to achieve substantial completion within the time required by the contract. While contracts like the AIA A201-2017 have provisions for extending the time to achieve substantial completion when delays are caused by circumstances beyond the contractor’s control, delays can result from factors other than improper management or planning and the like, for which the owner is not required to give the contractor additional time. Courts are split on whether there is ever coverage under a CGL policy for contractually agreed upon liquidated delay damages. Liquidated delay damages are often excluded under the contractual liability exclusion of most CGL policies. The contractual liability exclusion excludes coverage for “liability for which the Insured is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.” Courts often find the contractual liability exclusion in a CGL policy precludes coverage for liquidated delay damages, because such damages are contractual in nature and are triggered by the failure to bring the contract to substantial completion by a fixed deadline, regardless of the cause of the delay. However, some courts will look to the cause of the delay and find that there is coverage under a CGL policy for liquidated delay damages that are the result of property damage caused by an accident or occurrence. In Clark Const. Grp., Inc. v. Eagle Amalgamated Serv., Inc., 01-2478-DV, 2005 WL 2092998, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2005) a general contractor entered a contract for the renovation of the convention center in Memphis. Part of the project included the demolition of a structure attached to the convention center. The demolition work was improperly performed by a subcontractor and resulted in damage to the convention center. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Phelps
Mr. Richeson may be contacted at stuart.richeson@phelps.com

Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court considered the scope of testimony to be offered by the insureds' expert regarding a policy written for sanitation districts. Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Bd. v. Am. Alternative Ins. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112210 (N.D. N.Y. Aug. 25, 2015). The city of Binghamton and the city's Sewage Board sued American Alternative Insurance Corporation (AAIC) for coverage for a collapsed wall. AAIC sought the limit to testimony of the insureds' expert, Paul B. Nielander, through a motion in limine. AAIC argued that Nielander was not qualified as an expert in interpreting insurance policies. His knowledge and experience was limited to insurance practices in other states and the words contained in policies other than AAIC policies. He had no experience with (i) negotiating, drafting, or performing under an AAIC policy, (ii) handling claims or interpreting policies written in New York State, or (iii) drafting policies or otherwise participating in what he conceded was a "niche market" of providing insurance to sanitation districts. Further, Neilander was not qualified to offer expert analysis of when the structural failure of the wall occurred because he had no training or experience as an engineer. 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

White and Williams Ranked in Top Tiers of "Best Law Firms"

November 08, 2021 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams has achieved national recognition from U.S. News and World Report as a "Best Law Firm" in the practice areas of Insurance Law, Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Media Law. Our Boston, Delaware, New Jersey, New York City and Philadelphia offices have also been recognized in their respective metropolitan regions in several practice areas. National Tier 1 Insurance Law National Tier 2 Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law National Tier 3 Media Law Metropolitan Tier 1 Boston Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

April 03, 2019 — Graham C. Mills - Newmeyer & Dillion
A recent decision issued by the Iowa Supreme Court, City of West Liberty, Iowa v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, highlights the importance for a policyholder to investigate a loss fully so that a wide range of evidence can be gathered and presented to show why there is coverage. The facts of City of West Liberty are a little unusual, but its lesson is not limited to Iowa insurance law; the issues litigated in this case show the value of investigating what caused a loss regardless of whether the loss occurred in California, Iowa, or elsewhere. Background on the Case City of West Liberty involved an insurance coverage dispute between a municipality owned electrical power plant and its insurance company. The dispute arose from a single adventurous squirrel who climbed onto an outdoor electrical transformer, touching two different parts of the power plant: a portion of the steel frame and a bare cable clamp. In doing so, the squirrel created a “conductive path,” in the words of the Iowa Supreme Court, between the high voltage clamp and the grounded frame. The path, once created, caused significant damage to the transformer and other electrical equipment at the city’s power plant. The city submitted a claim for the resulting damage, but the insurance company denied it. The insurer denied based on an exclusion in the insurance policy for property damage “caused by arcing or by electrical currents other than lightning.” According to the insurance company, the squirrel had no role in causing the damage; all of the damage resulted from arcing, which was excluded from coverage. The ensuing lawsuit focused upon whether the squirrel had a role in causing the damage. If yes, then there would be coverage according to Iowa insurance law; when a loss results from two causes, one of which is covered and the other is not, then there is coverage if the loss occurs from the covered cause. Due to this legal standard, the city contended that, apart from the arcing causing any damage, the squirrel caused the damage too. Because the insurance policy provided protection against mischievous actions performed by squirrels, the city contended that it was entitled to coverage, even if the excluded arcing contributed to the same damage too. Unfortunately, for the city, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding instead that the property damage resulted only from the arcing, which was excluded from coverage. In reaching its conclusion, the court absolved the squirrel of any wrongdoing, finding that it did not cause any of the property damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Graham C. Mills, Newmeyer & Dillion
Mr. Mills may be contacted at graham.mills@ndlf.com

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

Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

February 27, 2019 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario
In Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2/8/19 No. A150833), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by the plaintiff based on the erroneous conclusion of an attorney who she had consulted (but who had not yet appeared as counsel in her case) that the applicable statute of limitations had not yet expired. In reality, the limitations period had expired on the same date plaintiff had filed her complaint in propria persona. The plaintiff later retained the attorney on a limited basis to present the motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) based on the attorney’s affidavit of fault. Therein, the attorney testified that he had advised the plaintiff to dismiss her action voluntarily based on a misinterpretation of the applicable limitations period, which the attorney characterized as having been based on his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” Section 473 provides two distinct provisions for relief from default or dismissal – one is discretionary, while the other is mandatory. Discretionary relief is available in the case of an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In contrast, mandatory relief is available where the resulting dismissal was caused by an attorney’s mistake, whether or not excusable. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court reasoned that the plaintiff could not rely upon Section 473(b) because (1) the attorney did not represent the plaintiff at the time and (2) this provision did not apply to the voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

My Construction Law Wish List

December 31, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I’ve been good this year. Not great mind you, but good, and good is the standard, right? So, here’s my construction law wish list this holiday season: 1.More Transparency. So much uncertainty and resultant litigation exists for the simple reason that contractors and subs don’t know when a higher tiered contractor or owner (on a lender financed project) has been paid for their work. So how about a requirement that owners, contractors and subcontractors of all tiers be required to disclose when payment applications are submitted, when payments are made and in what amount, and what pay applications have been paid. And because I’m pretty sure I’m at least within the 20th percentile of “good” this year how about a requirement that this information be provided through an online database accessible by all persons working on projects valued at over a certain dollar amount, say $500,000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

September 23, 2019 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Washington State has enacted a new law that means big changes for employers. The new law, in effect on January 1, 2020, will dramatically limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements in our state and imposes tough penalties on employers found to be in violation. While the new law does not take effect for many months, businesses should nonetheless act quickly and before year’s end to evaluate practices and, if necessary, revise existing and future non-compete agreements to ensure compliance. Under the new law, if an employee successfully proves a company’s non-compete agreement is unenforceable, then the employer will be required to pay the greater of $5,000 or an employee’s actual damages, plus the employee’s attorneys’ fees (and its own, in defending the non-compete), expenses and costs incurred in challenging the agreement. Brief Summary of Changes Washington Courts have typically disfavored restrictive covenants but usually enforced a non-competition agreement that protected an employer’s legitimate business interests and was reasonable in scope, geographic reach, and duration. The Legislature halted this trend through passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES