Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

What is a Subordination Agreement?

May 06, 2019 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Put simply, a subordination agreement is a legal agreement which establishes one debt as ranking behind another debt in the priority for collecting repayment from a debtor. It is an arrangement that alters the lien position. Without a subordination clause, loans take chronological priority which means that a deed of trust recorded first will be considered senior to all deeds of trusts recorded after. As such, the oldest loan becomes the primary loan, with first call on any proceeds from a sale of a property. However, a subordination agreement acknowledges that one party’s claim or interest is inferior to that of another party in the event that the borrowing entity liquidates its assets. Further, shareholders are subordinate to all creditors. The junior debt is referred to as a “subordinated debt”, and the debt which has a higher claim to any assets is the senior debt. Often, the borrower does not have enough funds to pay all debts, and lower priority debts may receive little or no repayment. For example, if a business has $400,000 in senior debt, $100,000 in subordinated debt, and a total asset value of $420,000, upon liquidation of the company, only the senior debtholder will be paid in full. The remaining $20,000 will be distributed among the subordinated debtholders. Subordinated debts are, therefore, riskier and lenders will require a higher interest rate as compensation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

May 15, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

February 23, 2016 — William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor. As noted in the Severn decision, the facts showed that Severn and IFC signed a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate Severn’s peanut storage dome and to apply the pesticide “in a manner consistent with instructions . . . and precautions set forth in [its] labeling.” With respect to damages, the PAA specified that IFC’s charge for its services, $8,604 plus applicable sales tax, was “based solely upon the value of the services provided” and was not “related to the value of [Severn’s] premises or the contents therein.” In addition, the PAA specified that the $8,604 sum to which the parties agreed was not “sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages” to Severn’s “property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

New York City Dept. of Buildings Explores Drones for Facade Inspections

December 13, 2021 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
Drones have only seen limited use in New York City for construction documentation and facade inspections due to restrictive local ordinances. But that may be changing with the release of a new report from the New York City Dept. of Buildings, which sees future potential for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), or drones, to be used in building facade inspections. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstein may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

White and Williams Announces Partner and Counsel Promotions

February 19, 2024 — White and Williams LLP
PHILADELPHIA–White and Williams LLP is pleased to announce the promotion of the following attorneys: Paul A. Briganti, Patrick A. Haggerty, Timothy (T.J.). Keough, Randy J. Maniloff, and Eric A. Sauter. All five attorneys have been promoted to the Firm’s partnership. The Firm has also promoted Michael L. DeBona, Lynndon K. Groff, and Susan J. Zingone from Associate to Counsel. “All of our new Partners and Counsel enrich the firm both internally and externally. They have demonstrated a deep commitment to providing our clients with best-in-class service and through their dedication and leadership earned elevation to partner and counsel at White and Williams,” said firm Managing Partner Tim Davis. “We look forward to their many continued successes and contributions to the Firm.” Paul A. Briganti practices out of the Philadelphia office and represents national and international insurance companies in coverage disputes and complex commercial litigation. He has significant experience litigating and advising clients on issues arising under various lines of coverage, including general liability, cyber, D&O, employers liability, commercial auto and homeowners. In addition, Paul is an editor of the firm’s Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter newsletter and a regular pro bono volunteer with the Senior Law Center. He received his J.D. from Villanova University School of Law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

March 28, 2018 — Neal Philip – Insurance Law Blog
As previously reported in this blog, Washington case law generally affords insureds a broad right to the discovery of claim file materials, including information that should be protected from disclosure by attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine. Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P. 3d 239 (2013). The discovery pitfalls created by Cedell were on full display in a recent Western District of Washington decision that granted an insured’s motion to compel production of work product and attorney/client communications from an insurer’s claims file. Westridge Townhomes Owners Ass’n v. Great American Assur. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27960 (W.D. Wash. February 21, 2018) The background facts are somewhat unclear, but it appears that the insured in this case made a claim for coverage under two insurance policies and there was an allegedly inadequate response from the insurers. The insured sued its insurers for coverage in 2016 before the insurers issued a declination of coverage letter. The two insurers retained the same attorney to represent them, and that attorney subsequently wrote a declination letter on behalf of the insurers, which was sent to the insured on April 12, 2017. The insured ultimately sought production of the entire claim file, which had not been split between the claim investigation and the coverage litigation. The insurers argued, among other things, that the insured was not entitled to anything after the litigation commenced in 2016 on work product grounds, and certainly was not entitled to communications with their attorney. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Neal Philip, Gordon, Reese, Scully, & Mansukhani
Mr. Philip may be contacted at nphilip@grsm.com

Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

February 27, 2019 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
Reversing a Texas Court of Appeals decision that allowed Anadarko’s Lloyd’s of London excess insurers to escape coverage for more than $100 million in defense costs incurred in connection with claims from the Deepwater Horizon well blowout, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the insurers’ obligations to pay defense costs under an “energy package” liability policy are not capped by a joint venture coverage limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Houston Casualty Co. et al., No. 16-1013 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2019). While the Lloyd’s of London insurers had agreed to pay Anadarko $37.5 million for damages, they declined to cover $100 million-plus in defense fees, arguing that both Anadarko’s liability and defense expenses are subject to the $37.5 million joint venture limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko asserted that only amounts paid as damages to third parties are subject to that limit. Defense costs, however, are not amounts paid as damages to a third party and, thus, are not a “liability.” Those amounts, therefore, are not subject to the joint venture limit and are instead subject to the policy’s $150 million coverage limit. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

August 17, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES