SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

July 22, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a favorable case for insureds, the Fifth District Court of Appeal maintained that “when an insurer breaches an insurance contract, the insured is entitled to recover more than the pecuniary loss involved in the balance of the payments due under the policy in consequential damages, provided the damages were in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the [insurance] contract.” Manor House, LLC v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1403b (Fla. 5thDCA 2019) (internal citations and quotation omitted). Thus, consequential damages can be recovered against an insurer in a breach of contract action (e.g., breach of the insurance policy) if the damages can be proven and were in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the insurance contract. In Manor House, the trial court entered summary judgment against the insured holding the insured could not seek lost rental income in its breach of contract action against Citizens Property Insurance because the property insurance policy did not provide coverage for lost rent. However, the Fifth District reversed this ruling because the trial court denied the insured the opportunity to prove whether the parties contemplated that the insured, an apartment complex owner, would suffer lost rental income (consequential damages) if the insurer breached its contractual duties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Last Parcel of Rancho del Oro Masterplan Purchased by Cornerstone Communties

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to San Diego Source, “A partnership controlled by Ure Kretowicz's Cornerstone Communities has paid a reported $25 million for a 28-acre residential parcel located on the northwest corner of College Avenue and Old Grove Road in the Rancho del Oro masterplan in Oceanside,” California. Cornerstone plans to create a “338-unit luxury apartment development,” with amenities including “resort-level clubhouse with an Olympic size swimming pool, spa, barbecue area, conferencing center” and more. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement

September 13, 2021 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. XL Ins. Am., Inc., 20-CV-4614 (LJL), 2021 WL 3617218 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York—in deciding a motion for consideration—had occasion to review the 2013 ISO changes to the additional insured endorsement, and held that coverage under a policy providing additional insured coverage was limited to the $1,000,000 required by contract, and not the $2,500,000 limit to the policy. In Zurich, Zurich and its named insured D.A. Collins sought the full limits of the primary policy issued by XL to the D.A. Collins’ subcontractor, HBI, which are $2,5000 per occurrence and in the aggregate, for an underlying personal injury lawsuit. XL also issued an excess policy in the amount of $5,000,000 to HBI. The contract between D.A. Collins and HBI required HBI to obtain commercial liability coverage “in an amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. It further provides that the “required limits for the umbrella excess coverage shall be sufficient to provide a total of $5,000,000 per occurrence/aggregate.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

---

When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

October 08, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The National Association of Home Builders recently conducted a survey asking its members about the legal issues they faced in the last 12 months and whether they consulted their attorney to deal with the problem. Below are some highlights of the survey. Legal Issue    % of Homebuilders %    Contacted Counsel Warranty/call back claims    34%    51% Contract disputes    22%    84% Defective Install/Workmanship    20%    83% OSHA Issues    13%    33% CGL Coverage Questions    11%    73% Construction Liens    10%    57% Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Texas Legislative Update

July 19, 2017 — Matthew S.C. Moore & Justin (JD) D. Holzeauser – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The marquee fight between Lt. Governor Patrick and Speaker Straus, otherwise known as the 85th Regular Legislative Session, concluded on May 29, 2017. While the political clash over the controversial “bathroom bill” will continue during the special legislative session, this article is intended to provide a brief summary of the construction-related bills that passed during the regular session and a few notable ones that did not pass. A special session has been called by Governor Abbott, but no construction-related bills were included on the agenda. What Passed? HB 2121 – Attorney’s fees for state breach of contract claims. A contractor who prevails on a state breach of contract claim pursuant to Chapter 2260 of the Government Code, that is also valued at less than $250,000.00, may recover attorney’s fees. By using the word “may”, the bill implies that the award of attorney’s fees will be at the discretion of the administrative law judge. This bill became law on June 15, 2017. HB 1463 – Right to cure ADA violations. A person with a disability may assert a claim for discrimination based on a violation of the building and architectural standards established in Chapter 469 of the Government Code. However, this bill requires the claimant to provide the respondent written notice at least sixty (60) days before filing an action for the violation and further gives the respondent an opportunity to cure the alleged violation within the sixty (60) day period. The obvious benefit of this bill is that it allows the respondent, e.g., the owner or potentially the contractor, an opportunity to remediate the violation without incurring litigation costs. This bill becomes effective law on September 1, 2017. Reprinted courtesy of Matthew S.C. Moore, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Justin (JD) D. Holzeauser, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Moore may be contacted at mmoore@pecklaw.com Mr. Holzheauser may be contacted at jdholzheauser@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court

March 12, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In 1997, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) decided Pancakes of Hawaii, Inc. v. Pomare Prop. Corp., 85 Haw. 286, 944 P.2d 83 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997). Although not an insurance coverage case, Pancakes addressed the duty to defend in terms of a contractual indemnity obligation. Under challenge in a recent appeal before the ICA, the Court reaffirmed the holding in Pancakes. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands, 2015 Haw. App. LEXIS 109 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015). The decision is long with detailed facts complicated and many indemnities running in favor of various parties. This post focuses on the decision's discussion of Pancakes. A resident, Mona Arthur, of the Kalawahine Streamside Housing Development, was killed when she apparently slipped and fell from a hillside adjacent to the project. She was on the hillside tending to her garden there. At the bottom of the hill was a two foot fence in front of a drainage ditch, where Mona allegedly hit her head. 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

---

Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

“(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Remote Trials Can Control Prejudgment Risk

September 07, 2020 — Robert G. Devine, Victor J. Zarrilli & Kimberly M. Collins - White and Williams LLP
While courts across the country are largely unavailable to litigants demanding a jury trial, pre-judgment interest rules present an increasing penalty risk to a defendant wanting its day in court and may not always make a plaintiff whole. The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the manner in which people and industries operate across the board. In light of the need to maintain social distancing whenever possible, the use of technology to replace in-person appearances is becoming more commonplace. As more attorneys become comfortable with the remote platform, the willingness to consider a remote trial grows. With in-person jury trials suspended until further notice, it is important for attorneys and parties to consider the attendant consequences of the indefinite delay in waiting for a traditional jury trial. Aside from general inconvenience, continued delays may have a substantial financial impact, particularly with regard to the accumulation of pre-judgment interest. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Robert G. Devine, Victor J. Zarrilli and Kimberly M. Collins Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Collins may be contacted at collinsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---