Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

February 23, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court applied the efficient proximate cause doctrine to find coverage under a property policy for a building's collapse. Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co., 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1181 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015). The insured submitted a claim to Amco for damage to the flooring of the house and for mold. Amco's adjustor reported that the house seemed to be settling, possibly due to a water leak. A structural engineer then inspected and found multiple potential leaks in the roof, gutters in disrepair, downspouts that deposited water at the base of the walls of the house, and evidence that a faucet had been spraying the wall in one area. Water damage was noticed in these areas. Further, the kitchen was water damaged and had past termite infestation. 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

Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

December 15, 2016 — Ellen Burrows – White and Williams LLP
Calling into question the continued validity of the so-called “Bellefonte Rule,” on December 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether a facultative reinsurance contract limit is presumptively all-inclusive and “caps” the reinsurer’s total exposure even where the reinsured policy pays defense costs in addition to the limit. Global Reinsurance Corporation v. Century Indemnity Company Docket No. 15-2164-cv (December 8, 2016).[1] In Bellefonte Reinsurance Company v. Aetna 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990), the court ruled that a reinsurer was not liable to pay defense costs above the stated reinsurance contract limit. Although litigants argued that this ruling was dependent on the fact that the reinsured policy limits were defense cost-inclusive, a later panel of the Second Circuit applied the “cap” ruling in Bellefonte to a situation where the reinsured policy limit was not cost-inclusive and where the insurer was obligated to pay defense costs in addition to the policy limit. Unigard Security Insurance Company v. North River Insurance Company 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellen Burrows, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Burrows may be contacted at burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com

Nation’s Top Court Limits EPA's Authority in Clean Air Case

July 25, 2022 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions, but the ruling was more limited than some environmental advocates had feared. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract

June 30, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Considering certified questions from the federal district court, the Arkansas Supreme Court followed a prior decision in deciding there was no coverage for property loss caused by faulty workmanship based solely on breach of contract. Columbia Ins. Group, Inc. v. Cenark Project Mgt. Services, Inc., 2016 Ark. LEXIS 185 (Ark. April 28, 2016). The homeowners entered a contract in 2005 with Arkansas Infrastructure, Inc. (AII) to construct pads for the construction of six homes. The contract provided that AII would perform the work in accordance with the plans, specifications, and drawings developed by CENARK Project Management Services, Inc. In 2012, the homeowners sued AII for breach of contract, alleging that AII had failed to construct the pads in accordance with the plans and specifications designed by CENARK. 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

Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab

November 17, 2016 — Aarni Heiskanen – AEC Business
I had the pleasure of interviewing Laura Kassovic, CEO and Co-founder at MbientLab Inc. We discuss how wearable technology and smart sensors can help on the construction site. MbientLab is a technology company headquartered in San Francisco, California. It was started about four years ago by a team of engineers who are experts in sensors and machine learning. MbientLab develops wearable technology and also does manufacturing in the USA and Asia. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

Finding an "Occurrence," Appellate Court Rules Insurer Must Defend

March 11, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing the trial court, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found the insurer must defend a cross-claim against the insured owner of a building after an explosion occurred. LBC, LLC v Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2023 Wis. App. LEXIS 1251 (Wis. Ct. App, Nov. 30, 2023). LBC leased commercial property to Spectrum. Spectrum stored lithium on the property. The lithium exploded when it came into contact with water that entered the premises during historic flooding in August 2018. Spectrum remediated the premises, vacated the premises prior to the lease's termination date, and stopped paying rent. LBC sued Spectrum, alleging that Spectrum negligently stored the lithium and that Spectrum breached the lease. Spectrum counterclaimed, alleging that LCB breached the lease in various respects, that LCB negligent allowed water to infiltrate the premises, and that Spectrum was constructively evicted. LCB tendered the counterclaim to its insurer, General Casualty. The tender was denied and LCB sued. 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

Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

December 23, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Ensuring regulatory compliance of firewall constructions is getting a high-tech boost. Over the past 16 months, the construction team responsible for the iconic new Nyt Hospital Nordsjælland near Copenhagen used Imerso construction AI technology to achieve remarkable results. By using Imerso, the team enhanced work productivity while preventing costs and delays worth €5.2 million during the construction of the superstructure. Inspired by this success, the team led by Project Manager Anders Kaas has since been eager to explore the potential of the technology in other areas. The opportunity arose to address a topic that has traditionally posed significant challenges and expenses in numerous construction projects – ensuring regulatory compliance of fire barriers and firewall constructions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Slow Down?

December 03, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Absolutely not, said the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal to a masonry subcontractor being sued for allegedly improperly refusing to honor a subcontract bid. A general contractor preparing its overall bid for a public project in Jefferson Parish relied in the process on the defendant masonry subcontractor’s bid. After a public bid process and receiving the award of the project, the general contractor was informed by the subcontractor that it believed that the unit price form that had been supplied to the sub “contained inaccuracies.” Notwithstanding offers by the GC to endeavor to address the purported “inaccuracies” during the project, most likely by a change order, the subcontractor refused to execute its subcontract. The general contractor then awarded the masonry work to another subcontractor for $368,222 more than the original sub’s bid. The GC filed suit – for recovery of $368,222 – against the defendant subcontractor during the course of the public project. The defendant sub objected, arguing to the court that the lawsuit was “premature.” At the heart of the prematurity argument: the sub urging that the general contractor filed suit before its right to recover damages had accrued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES