SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

November 15, 2022 — Michael S. Levine, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matthew J. Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Delaware court recently granted summary judgment to a mortgage broker targeted in a federal government investigation for alleged False Claims Act violations, holding that the company’s directors and officers liability (“D&O”) insurer was required to indemnify more than $15 million in settlement costs with the U.S. Department of Justice. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, No. N20C-04-268 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2022). We previously reported on the policyholder’s earlier victory in this case, in which the court held that a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from federal authorities triggered the insurer’s obligation to pay defense costs under the D&O policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Forget the Apple Watch. Apple’s Next Biggest Thing Isn’t for Sale

May 20, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Apple released its much anticipated Apple Watch this past month. The Apple Watch is significant for Apple, not only because its profit and loss statement has a lot riding on it, but because it’s the company’s first foray into consumer “wearables.” This isn’t the first time the Cupertino company has ventured into new areas, through. Since its first consumer product, the Apple I, was released in 1976, Apple has gone from personal computers – and its iterations, including, desktops, laptops and tablets – to music players, cell phones and now watches. Today, Apple is less a computer company than a consumer electronics company, and even that doesn’t quite seem to go far enough, as it has become a lifestyle brand for many. Comparisons can be drawn to Sony during the mid-1980s when everyone aspired to a home filled with Sony televisions, Sony receivers and Sony Walkmans. Part of Apple’s success is that it sells a lifestyle that transcends its products, in which a glossy, sophisticated minimalism and simplicity, are among its most recognizable characteristics. It goes beyond their products, and is embodied in their advertising, their online and retail stores, and their packaging. And while the Apple Watch may be Apple’s latest “big” thing, I think something even bigger is underfoot at Apple, and it’s something you can’t buy. 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

---

AB 3018: Amendments to the Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements on California Public Projects

February 18, 2019 — Alex R. Bagdassarian & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & Abramson
What California Contractors Need To Know About AB 3018 California contractors used to face limited consequences for non-compliance with the state’s skilled and trained workforce requirements on public works projects. A sea-change to the statutory landscape went into effect on January 1, 2019 as a result of Assembly Bill No. 3018 (“AB 3018”).1 The Code re-defines what constitutes a skilled/trained workforce by eliminating existing exemptions, strengthens monthly reporting guidelines and agency oversight, and empowers the Labor Commissioner and public agencies with enforcement tools that include monetary penalties and debarment. Contractors who fail to institute a program to comply with AB 3018’s reporting requirements do so at their peril. What Does The 30% Requirement Mean? Previously, in order to comply with the skilled workforce requirements2, 30% of skilled journeypersons had to be graduates of an apprenticeship program, except for certain listed trades which were exempt from the apprenticeship percentage requirement3. AB 3018 eliminates this exception for the listed occupations and requires 30% of all trades to be comprised of apprenticeship program graduates. Reprinted courtesy of Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at Abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

March 04, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As Morrissey of the Smith’s sang: Coyness is nice, but Coyness can stop you, from saying all the things in life you’d like to. It’s not uncommon in litigation to see a complaint asking for “damages according to proof.” Call it laziness. Call it hiding the ball. Call it coy, even. I call it risky. And here’s why: If a defendant doesn’t appear and you need to seek a default judgment against him, her, or it, you are barred from doing so, since you are limited to recovering the amount you sought. And last I checked, something of nothing is nothing. In Yu v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. G054522 (December 11, 2018), one plaintiff found this out the hard way, although perhaps not quite in the way they expected it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

January 27, 2020 — David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement Blog
A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case demonstrates the risk of joint ventures failing to carefully define accounting rules in their joint venture agreement. Two trade contractors teamed up to accomplish certain tasks on a job at a wastewater lift station at Fort Gordon. A joint venture agreement provided for an equal split of the profits and losses. Unfortunately, the parties did not define “profit,” and particularly did not define what cost would be deducted in calculating profit. They disputed in particular whether certain large payments to individuals and 15% overhead charges should be deducted in calculating profits. One party presented the expert testimony of an accountant while the other did not. The party presenting expert testimony asked the court to dismiss the other party’s claim because it was not supported by expert testimony of an accountant. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

October 05, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I’ve discussed the continuing litigation between White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas, Inc. previously here at Construction Law Musings because the case was another reminder that your construction contract terms matter and will be interpreted strictly here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The prior opinion in this case from the Eastern District of Virginia court the Court considered the applicability of a liquidated damages provision. In the latest opinion from the Court (PDF) the Court looked at when and how any liquidated damages would be calculated. In its June 22, 2020 opinion, the Court put the issue as follows:

White Oak’s motion for partial summary judgment presents a narrow issue: whether courts may consider the damages actually sustained by a party as a result of a contract breach when deciding if liquidated damages required by a contract “grossly exceed” a party’s actual damages.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named to Hudson Valley Magazine’s 2022 Top Lawyers List

January 24, 2022 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that nine Partners from the Hawthorne, NY office have been named to the 2022 Hudson Valley Magazine Top Lawyers List. 2022 Hudson Valley Magazine’s Top Lawyers:

• Mario Castellitto – Construction
• Jonathan R. Harwood – Professional Malpractice (Non-Medical) – Defense
• Colleen E. Hastie – Construction
• Timothy G. McNamara – Product Liability
• Hillary J. Raimondi – Professional Malpractice (Non-Medical) – Defense
• Richard J. Rogers – Insurance
• Lisa M. Rolle – Professional Malpractice (Non-Medical) – Defense
• Stephen D. Straus – Product Liability
• Lisa L. Shrewsberry – Professional Malpractice (Non-Medical) – Defense

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

---

Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

February 14, 2013 — Heidi Gassman — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Keirns Construction Co. (“Keirns”) hired Landmark Engineering, Ltd. (“Landmark”) to provide a geotechnical investigation and foundation designs for two duplexes Keirns built in Larimer County. Keirns and Landmark signed one contract in 2001 for the geotechnical work and two separate contracts in 2005 for the foundation design of the two duplexes. Each contract contained an identical “risk allocation clause,” which had language specifically limiting Landmark’s liability to Keirns. The risk allocation clause also had language specifically prohibiting claims against individuals and only allowing claims against a corporation. After the two duplexes were built, foundation problems developed, and Keirns filed suit against Landmark for breach of contract and negligence. Keirns also filed suit against two individual employees of Landmark, Wayne Thompson and Larry Miller, for negligence. Messrs. Thompson and Miller performed the geotechnical and design services pursuant to the contracts. Landmark and Messrs. Thompson and Miller filed a motion seeking to enforce the risk of allocation clauses in the contracts, thereby limiting Landmark’s liability. Messrs. Thompson and Miller also filed a summary judgment motion seeking their dismissal from the case based on the prohibition in the risk allocation clause against asserting claims against individuals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heidi Gassman
Ms. Gassman can be contacted at gassman@hhmrlaw.com

---