Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits

August 10, 2020 — Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri & Katelyn Werner - Gordon & Rees
Despite first party insurance policies generally requiring cooperation from an insured in the investigation of a claim, insurers can no longer rely on the failure to cooperate as a defense in a claim for first party insurance benefits in Colorado unless certain conditions are met. The Bill: On July 2, 2020, Colorado Governor Jared S. Polis signed House Bill 20-1290 which addresses the ability of an insurer to use a failure to cooperate defense in an action where the insured has made a claim for benefits under an insurance policy. This bill bars an insurer from raising the failure to cooperate unless the following conditions are met:

The insurer submitted a written request to the insured or the insured’s representative for the information (via electronic means if consent was given by insured or insured’s representative, or via certified mail);
The information is not available to the insurer without the assistance of the insured;
The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
The written request is for information a reasonable person would determine the insurer needs to adjust the claim filed by the insured or to prevent fraud; and
The insurer gives the insured an opportunity to cure, which must:

Provide written notice to the insured of the alleged failure to cooperate, describing with particularity the alleged failure within 60 days after the alleged failure; and
Allow the insured 60 days after receipt of the written notice to cure the alleged failure to cooperate.

Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri and Katelyn Werner Ms. Kroupa may be contacted at ckroupa@grsm.com Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at jpalmeri@grsm.com Ms. Werner may be contacted at kwerner@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Motion for Summary Judgment Gets Pooped Upon

December 16, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
I’ve read some crappy motions over the years, some of which opposing counsel might even attribute to me, but I don’t think I’ve ever written about poop and motions. In Beebe v. Wonderful Pistachio & Almonds LLC, a summary judgment motion filed by a project owner sued by a construction worker for personal injuries caused by bird poop, which in turn caused a nasty fungal infection which spread to his brain, resulted in a not-so-wonderful ending for Wonderful. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Be a Good Neighbor: Protect Against Claims by an Adjacent Landowner During Construction

November 09, 2020 — Joshua Levy & Madeleine Bailey - Construction Executive
There’s nothing like working in an office while pilings are being pounded into the ground next door, leading to crashing sounds of pile driving and the attendant afternoon headaches. Fortunately, that’s often the extent of a neighboring project’s real inconvenience. In other cases, however, construction in close quarters can mark the beginning of costly and emotional disputes, which can escalate to costly legal battles during and after construction. NUISANCE AND STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CLAIMS Construction claims are often based on the concept of “nuisance,” or on structural damage to adjacent property. Nuisance claims are typically based on noise and dust from construction sites, while structural damage claims are based on direct physical damage caused by neighboring demolition, vibrations, excavation and dewatering. These types of claims can result in monetary damages for neighbor plaintiffs, loss of permits for contractors and reputational damage to the developer. In one recent case in New York City, the developer faces up to $10 million in damages in a lawsuit with a neighboring property owner. The developer was conducting excavation, dewatering and installation of steel sheet piles, which the plaintiff alleges caused its five-story building to settle and shift, rendering doors inoperable and causing extensive cracking and separation of floors and ceilings from walls and supports. The plaintiff filed its complaint on Jan. 24, 2019, and the lawsuit is ongoing, exemplifying that construction claims such as these can be time consuming and costly (Complaint, 642 East 14th St. v. 644 E. 14th Realty [N.Y. Sup. Ct. January 24, 2019]). Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Levy & Madeleine Bailey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Levy may be contacted at joshua.levy@huschblackwell.com

White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

January 28, 2014 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams attorneys scored a significant victory for the insurance industry on January 15, 2014, when a federal jury of four men and four women rejected a policyholder’s novel efforts to invalidate asbestos exclusions contained in insurance policies issued between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985. In General Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 04-CV-3509 (E.D. Pa.), General Refractories Company contended that asbestos exclusions in insurance policies issued by various insurance companies in the late 1970s and 1980s had not been submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance for approval prior to use and, therefore, were unenforceable. Holding a failure to obtain approval, by itself, would not be sufficient to render the exclusions unenforceable, the Honorable Edmund Ludwig sent the matter to trial to determine whether the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner implemented a policy that was uniformly executed by the Insurance Department to disapprove all asbestos exclusions between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985, such that the exclusions violated a “dominant public policy.”

Reprinted courtesy of Gregory LoCasale, White and Williams LLP

and Patricia Santelle , White and Williams LLP

Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com and Mr. LoCasale may be contacted at locasaleg@whiteandwilliams.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Court of Appeal Holds a Tenant Owes No Duty to Protect a Social Guest From a Defective Sidewalk Leading to a Condominium Unit

May 22, 2023 — Garrett A. Smee & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On May 5, 2023, the California First District Court of Appeal, Division One, issued an opinion in Moses v. Roger-McKeever (A164405), holding that a condominium tenant owes no duty to a social guest using a walkway that leads to the unit. Eleanor Moses fell on a walkway outside a condo rented by Pascale Roger-McKeever. Moses would not have used the walkway but for Roger-McKeever’s invite to a small gathering for members of a political activist group. Upon entering the condo for the event that night, Moses brought to Roger-McKeever’s attention the poor lighting in the entryway. Roger-McKeever apologized, and stated that her landlord had delayed repairing the porch light. The accident supposedly happened on a short walkway that had three steps leading away from a street sidewalk. Supposedly, Moses tripped on the second step while leaving the social gathering because of the poor lighting. Reprinted courtesy of Garrett A. Smee, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Smee may be contacted at gsmee@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Creeping Incrementalism in Downstream Insurance: Carriers are Stretching Standard CGL Concepts to Untenable Limits

October 17, 2023 — Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In the construction sector, the importance of closely vetting downstream parties’ insurance has never been more critical. The markets have been hardening with no seeming end in sight and carriers are looking for any way to get an edge. Owners and general contractors need to be on the lookout for ever broader carrier-specific expansions of standard insurance provisions that are perilous for risk transfer. We are seeing more and more terms that go against the intent of ISO standard which is what is almost universally required in construction contracts. One area where carriers are deviating from standard concepts is within pre-existing injury or damage exclusions in Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policies. It is almost a universal requirement that downstream parties provide additional insured coverage to owners and general contractors on ISO form CG 00 01. Generally, ISO standard language provides coverage for sums the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage. One of the few main requirements to trigger coverage is that the injury or damage must occur during the policy period. Over the years, ISO standard language has evolved to exclude injury or damage if an insured or certain persons knew that it had occurred before the policy period. Additionally, injury or damage is deemed to have been known to have occurred under certain circumstances. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com

Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
According to the advice provided by T. Allen Mott and Nicholas D. Cowie, condominium boards would be well advised to “hire an engineer or architect to perform a transition study,” since it would be preferable to repair any problems while warranties are still in effect. They also caution that the board must “determine whether the developer-created budget and reserve fund are adequate to cover the cost of maintaining the condominium’s construction over time.” They note that discovered in time, some problems are easy to fix, but left unrepaired, they can result in “extensive, hidden property damage requiring associations to borrow money and assess unit owners to cover the entire cost of repairing the developer’s construction defects and resulting property damage. The goal, as they point out, is “an amicable repair resolution.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a list provided to the city of Los Angeles by the University of California, there are “about 1,500 old concrete buildings that are potentially at risk of collapse during an earthquake,” the Los Angeles Times reported. The list can help the city identify “concrete buildings most likely to fail in an earthquake.” The report, however, “does not amount to a list of dangerous buildings,” the university scientists told the Los Angeles Times. It is a list of concrete buildings built before 1980. Some of the “buildings are vulnerable, others are not.” Concrete buildings pose a potentially dangerous threat, reported the Los Angeles Times: “After the Northridge earthquake caused two concrete buildings to collapse and severely damaged others, structural engineers warned that the collapse of a single concrete building ‘has the potential for more loss of life than any other catastrophe in California’ since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.” Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles Mayor, has asked Lucy Jones, a U.S. Geological Survey seismologist, to act as his science advisor on earthquake issues. Garcetti has asked Jones “to come up with recommendations by the end of the year on retrofitting issues, including how to get privately owned concrete buildings retrofitted.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES