Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

September 04, 2018 — Brian Bassett - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In Lexington Ins. Co. v. Chi. Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135871, 2018 WL 3819109 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that rip-and-tear costs could qualify as covered “property damage,” but the court rejected coverage for claims that the insured intentionally sold a noncompliant product as the suit did not allege an “occurrence.” Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) issued a CGL policy to Chicago Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp. (“Flameproof”). During the policy period, a third party ordered fire-retardant-treated lumber from Flameproof for construction in Minnesota. Flameproof instead sent materials that were not tested, certified, or labeled as compliant. The third party installed the materials, discovered the non-compliance, and then removed the materials. Removing the materials allegedly damaged other portions of the building on the project. The third party then sued Flameproof, alleging costs associated with replacing the lumber as well as property damage to the other materials from the removal of the lumber. Flameproof tendered the claim to Lexington seeking a defense. Lexington filed a declaratory action in the Northern District of Illinois. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Bassett may be contacted at bbassett@tlsslaw.com

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer

June 26, 2023 — Jeremy S. Macklin & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Jeremy Macklin and Associate Danielle Kegley obtained judgment on the pleadings in favor of Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”), in a matter brought before the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In the underlying case, an injured employee sued various companies, and their agents, for injuries he sustained on a construction project. The insureds, one of the defendant companies and its employee, sought coverage for the underlying lawsuit under a professional liability policy issued to that company by Admiral. The policy at issue provided coverage for the company and its employees, for negligent acts or omissions committed in the rendering of “professional services,” defined as services “involving specialized training and skill while in the pursuit of” mechanical and process engineering. After initially defending the insureds, Admiral filed a declaratory judgment action asking the Court to declare that the company has no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds in the underlying lawsuit and to allow Admiral to immediately withdraw its defense of the insureds. Admiral argued there is no coverage under the professional liability policy, as the underlying lawsuit does not contain allegations that the underlying plaintiff’s injuries arose from the rendering of or failure to render “professional services.” The insureds argued that since they were hired as mechanical and process engineers for the project, that any lawsuits against them must necessarily arise from their “professional services.” Further, the insureds asked the Court to disregard the express allegations in the underlying lawsuit concerning their role on the project as a general contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

November 04, 2019 — Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record
Nearly 14 months after the Morandi viaduct collapsed in Genoa, Italy, killing 43 people, crews placed the first section of a 1,067-meter-long, 19-span steel and concrete replacement structure. Reprinted courtesy of Peter Reina, Engineering News-Record

Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com READ THE FULL STORY... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

October 24, 2023 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that seven Partners from the Hawthorne, NY Office have been selected to the 2023 New York - Metro Super Lawyers list. In addition, one associate has been named to the 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers

Copernicus Gaza – Insurance Coverage
Jonathan Harwood – Professional Liability
Lisa Rolle – Construction Litigation
Christopher Russo – Professional Liability
Lisa Shrewsberry – Professional Liability
Stephen Straus – Insurance Coverage
Richard Traub – Insurance Coverage

2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers Rising Stars

Aris Rotella – Civil Litigation

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.

The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.

Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.

Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.

However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Bidding for Success

May 22, 2023 — The Hartford Staff - The Hartford Insights
When construction companies develop a history of successful projects, they often consider bidding on larger projects. However, larger projects can carry greater risks. If your company has successfully completed numerous $10 million projects and is considering a bid on a $100 million project, there are several factors to consider before submitting a proposal. That is because bidding on the wrong project could potentially put you out of business. “When a contractor bids a larger project, there is a greater financial risk,” says Tim Holicky, a senior executive underwriter at The Hartford. There are more subcontractors to manage and additional materials to purchase, which all leads to greater financial risk. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

Insuring Lease/Leaseback Projects

August 19, 2024 — David G. Jordan & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Overview Several states utilize a unique statutory mechanism to allow school districts to finance the construction of public-school facilities. This arrangement (known as a “lease-leaseback agreement”) allows a school district to lease property to a contractor/developer, who then constructs or renovates a school facility on the property. Once the work is completed, the contractor/developer leases the school building back to the school district. The school district then makes lease payments over time, often many years, which can be structured in various ways to spread out the cost of construction. The arrangement typically requires a site lease for the land leased to the contractor/developer, a facilities lease for the lease-back of the school building to the school district and a traditional construction agreement. In some ways, the arrangement resembles a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) whereby a public entity collaborates with a private entity for the purpose of financing and delivering a project traditionally provided solely by the public sector. Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Dangers of an Unlicensed Contractor from Every Angle

January 11, 2021 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The State of California requires that contractors in the building trades be licensed. Individuals and business entities obtain their contractors licenses by demonstrating to the California Contractors State License Board that they have the requisite knowledge, skill, and experience to be licensed. The CSLB issues licenses to those meeting requirements. As a construction attorney of longstanding tenure, I have witnessed the impact of unlicensed building contractors from every point of view. If you are considering hiring an unlicensed contractor, acting as an unlicensed contractor or even working for an unlicensed contractor as an employee, please consider the following perils: To the Owner Considering Hiring an Unlicensed Contractor: On the positive side for owners considering hiring an unlicensed contractor, the general rule in California is that an owner can escape the obligation to pay an unlicensed contractor for work performed and materials supplied because unlicensed contractors are prohibited from bringing legal actions against owners for payment. The law even goes so far as to allow the Owner to bring a legal action against the unlicensed Contractor for reimbursement of anything the owner paid to the unlicensed contractor. This is done through a “disgorgement” action (see, Business and Professions Code 7031. See also, the following article: Disgorgement Article). Despite this, there are a great many negative potential consequences to be considered by any owner who might consider hiring an unlicensed contractor. Among them are the following:

If you are considering not paying your unlicensed contractor because Business and Professions Code 7031 allows it, please consider that unlicensed contractors, who have clearly demonstrated a disinclination to follow legal obligations in the first place, may resort to “less than socially acceptable” means of exacting retribution against those who do not pay them or who demand the return of money paid through a disgorgement action I am sorry to say this. Let us leave it at that.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES