SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Absence of Property Damage During Policy Period Equates to No Coverage

April 01, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Montana Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the insured due to a lack of property damage during the policy period. Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia, 2015 Mont. LEXIS 54 (Mont. Feb. 17, 2015). The insured plumbing company, Lolo Plumbing & Heating, installed a water heater at Famous Dave's restaurant. At the time of installation, the insured had a CGL policy with Truck. The policy provided coverage from July 10, 2006 to November 29, 2009. On March 12, 2010, three years after the water heater was installed, a burning smaell was detected in the restaurant's mechanical room. The fire department turned off the water heater and asked that a plumber look at it. Diamond Plumbing & Heating was called and replaced the combustion air fan assembly, but did not further examine the water heater. 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

---

Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

March 27, 2019 — Duane Craig - Construction Informer
I’ve often wondered just where the term “punch list” came from, and I’ve found a few sources that seem to make sense, while others not so much. One person claims it came from the telephone installer process of “punching down” terminals on a block. That seems a bit of a stretch though. A blog writer said it had to do with the term ‘punch’ since it means to “punch something up” as in fix it. Another blog writer thought it had something to do with a long forgotten practice. Apparently subcontractors used to each have their own hole punches that would punch a hole with a shape unique to them. They would use these punches to indicate they had corrected the deficiency that was their responsibility. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Duane Craig, Construction Informer

---

Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

January 15, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s the holidays. A time when family and friends, and even neighbors, gather together. And nothing brings neighbors closer together than class action residential construction defect litigation. In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, Case No. B288935 (November 14, 2018), the Second District Court of Appeal addressed whether neighbors can bring class action lawsuits under the Right to Repair Act. For those who are regular readers of the California Construction Law Blog you’re familiar with the Right to Repair Act codified at Civil Code sections 895 et seq. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Judge Gleuda E. Edmonds, a magistrate judge in the United States District Court of Arizona issued a ruling in Guadiana v. State Farm on January 25, 2012. Judge Edmonds recommended a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.



Ms. Guandiana’s home had water damage due to pluming leaks in September 2004. She was informed that polybutylene pluming in her house could not be repaired in parts “it must be completely replaced.” She had had the plumbing replaced. State Farm denied her claim, arguing that “the tear-out provision did not cover the cost of accessing and replacing those pipes that were not leaking.”



In September 2007, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss. The court rejected this motion, stating that “If Guadiana can establish as a matter of fact that the system that caused the covered loss included all the pipes in her house and it was necessary to replace all the pipes to repair that system, State Farm is obligated to pay the tear-out costs necessary to replace all the pipes, even those not leaking.”



In March 2009, State Farm filed for summary judgment, which the court granted. State Farm argued that “the tear-out provision only applied to ‘repair’ and not ‘replace’ the system that caused the covered leak.” As for the rest of the piping, State Farm argued that “the policy does not cover defective materials.”



In December 2011, Ms. Guadiana filed for summary judgment, asking the court to determine that “the policy ‘covers tear-out costs necessary to adequately repair the plumbing system, even if an adequate repair requires replacing all or part of the system.”



In her ruling, Judge Edmonds noted that Ms. Guadiana’s claim is that “the water damage is a covered loss and she is entitled to tear-out costs necessary to repair the pluming system that caused that covered loss.” She rejected State Farm’s claim that it was not obligated to replace presumably defective pipes. Further, she rejected State Farm’s argument that they were only responsible for the leaking portion, noting “Guadiana intends to prove at trial that this is an unusual case where repair of her plumbing system requires replacement of all the PB plumbing.”



Judge Edmonds concluded by directing the District Court to interpret the tear out issue as “the tear-out provision in State Farm’s policy requires State Farm to pay all tear-out costs necessary to repair the plumbing system (that caused the covered loss) even if repair of the system requires accessing more than the leaking portion of the system.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource

March 30, 2020 — Adam Chelminiak, Joshua Mooney & Ryan Udell - White and Williams LLP
In less than a few weeks’ time, COVID-19 has changed the way we live and work. Businesses, large and small, have had to grapple with unprecedented challenges, including orders to close or significantly curtail operations in order to stem the transmission of the coronavirus. Often, these orders have not been clear or businesses are unsure whether they fit in a category that is deemed essential, life sustaining or other similar category that permits them to continue to operate. Or, the business believes that it is necessary for it to continue to operate for reasons that may not have been apparent to the governmental authority issuing the order. White and Williams has been busy assisting our clients in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and other states in understanding these orders. Below are government orders, and related resources, that have been announced and/or are currently in effect. White and Williams will continue to monitor these orders and add additional orders and resources as they are announced. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Adam Chelminiak, Joshua Mooney and Ryan Udell Mr. Chelminiak may be contacted at chelminiaka@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Mooney may be contacted at mooneyj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Udell may be contacted at udellr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story for government orders, and related resources, that have been announced and/or are currently in effect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contractor Side Deals Can Waive Rights

October 02, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, we are quite fond of the Federal Miller Act and it’s Virginia counterpart, the “Little” Miller Act. Both of these statutes allow a subcontractor or supplier on a government construction project the security to perform their work with the knowledge that a bonding company will back their claim for payment. These acts are necessary because a construction company cannot file a mechanic’s lien on a government owned piece of property. As a general rule the Miller Acts impose almost strict liability on a contractor and its surety to pay for work performed by a downstream supplier or subcontractor. However, as a recent case out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals makes clear, this rule is not without exceptions. 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

---

Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

March 22, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Publications & Insights
In Doyle v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. (No. G054197, filed 3/7/18), a California appeals court held that financial loss from purchasing counterfeit vintage wine was not direct and accidental loss or damage to covered property within the coverage of a valuable possessions property policy. In Doyle, the insured was a collector of rare, vintage wine that was housed in a wine storage facility. He had purchased nearly $18 million of purportedly rare, vintage wine from a dealer, and insured the collection under a valuable possessions policy. But a law enforcement investigation revealed that the dealer had been filling empty wine bottles with his own wine blend and affixing counterfeit labels. The dealer was convicted of fraud and was sent to prison for 10 years. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Overtime! – When the Statute of Limitations Isn’t Game Over For Your Claim

August 07, 2022 — Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Statutes of limitations establish the period of time within which a claimant must bring an action after it accrues. An action can be filing a lawsuit and, in some instances, filing a demand for arbitration. But a multi-year construction project could be longer than the applicable statute of limitations. For example, under Delaware or North Carolina law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract is only three years.1 So a claim for breach of a construction contract that occurred (i.e. accrued) at the beginning of a four-year project under Delaware or North Carolina law may expire before the project is completed. Generally, a claim accrues at the time of the breach (however, it is important to note that this is not always the case and claim accrual could be the subject of an entirely different article). During the course of a multi-year construction project, proposed change orders or claims for additional compensation can sit, unanswered or unpursued, for months. Or, the parties may informally agree as part of regular project communications to put off dealing with a claim head-on until the end of the project. On certain projects, slow-walking a claim is understandable, as a contractor may be hesitant to sue an owner in the middle of a multi-year project and risk upsetting an otherwise good working relationship. But a delay in formally asserting a put-off claim after it accrues could result in the claim falling subject to a statute of limitations defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com

---