SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage

June 18, 2014 — Robert F. Walsh and Paul A. Briganti – White and Williams LLP
On June 10, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) issued a unanimous decision in KeySpan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. (No. 110, June 10, 2014), reversing a lower court decision which had erroneously imposed on insurers a duty to disclaim coverage for property damage claims as soon as possible or risk waiving their coverage defenses. White and Williams represented one of the insurance company defendants in the action. The case involved an action against three excess insurers for insurance coverage for underlying environmental claims arising from Manufactured Gas Plant sites. Upon receiving notice of the underlying claims, the three insurers reserved their rights to deny coverage on various grounds, including late notice of an occurrence, pending an investigation. The insurers ultimately denied coverage on the basis of late notice several years later based on information developed in discovery in the litigation. The policyholder/plaintiff KeySpan argued that the insurers had unreasonably delayed in issuing their disclaimers and that there was a triable issue of fact on whether such a delay amounted to a waiver of the late notice defense. Reprinted courtesy of Robert F. Walsh, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

October 07, 2019 — Mahmut Ekenel & Melissa Sanchez - Construction Executive
The mention of 3D printing alone is enough to get people excited, often conjuring images of a desktop console that can download and create three dimensional objects such as prototypes, or mechanical parts. And yet, in recent years the technology has given way to a slight impatience, as people begin to wonder how and when it will have a direct impact on both their lifestyles and their businesses. The construction industry has been quick to take advantage of these innovations, and the effects are tangible, especially regarding building safety. The 3D construction technology allows for several key advantages in terms of faster construction times, uncompromised quality of construction and lower costs—allowing for affordable dwellings to be quickly built for people in need. These advantages also lead to safety improvements during the building process. The ability to accelerate construction time without requiring an increase in labor results in a fewer construction-related workplace injuries and a reduction in material waste, making it an environmentally friendly construction method as well. ICC-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), a subsidiary of the International Code Council (ICC) which develops model codes and standards (i.e. International Building Code, International Residential Code) and delivers a wide array of building safety services, has taken the lead on developing acceptance criteria to address building code compliance of 3D printed construction. Currently, 3D construction technology is not within the provisions of the International Building Code (IBC) or International Residential Code (IRC). The acceptance criteria introduces new compliance measures for interior and exterior 3D printed concrete walls (with and without structural steel reinforcement), load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, and shear walls in one-story, single-unit, residential dwellings. The 3D walls are constructed by printing two outer layers of 3D concrete and then filling the core with 3D concrete to form a solid wall. Reprinted courtesy of Mahmut Ekenel & Melissa Sanchez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Ekenel may be contacted at mekenel@icc-es.org Ms. Sanchez may be contacted at msanchez@icc-es.org Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Someone Who Hires an Independent Contractor May Still Be Liable, But Not in This Case

April 18, 2023 — Katherine Dempsey - The Subrogation Strategist
In Allstate Veh. & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Glitz Constr. Corp., 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1180, 2023 NY Slip Op 01171, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department (Appellate Court), considered whether a contractor could be found liable for its subcontractor’s alleged negligence in causing injury to a homeowner’s property. The homeowner’s insurer, as subrogee of the homeowner, sought to recover damages from the contractor despite an allegation that the subcontractor – an independent contractor – caused the injury to the homeowner’s property. Finding that there was no evidence that any of the exceptions to the non-liability rule related to hiring independent contractors applied, the Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting judgment in favor of the contractor. In this case, the homeowner hired the contractor (defendant) to convert her garage area into a bedroom and an office. The defendant later hired a subcontractor to perform the electrical rough-in work. At trial, the homeowner’s insurer (plaintiff) presented evidence that the subcontractor, who damaged an existing wire with a drill bit, caused an electrical failure that resulted in a fire. The defendant argued that it could not be held liable for the subcontractor’s alleged negligence because the subcontractor was an independent contractor and, on appeal, the Appellate Court agreed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

September 30, 2019 — William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy, & Denis Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Congratulations to Haight’s attorneys who were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition Los Angeles, California William G. Baumgaertner for personal injury and product liability litigation for plaintiffs and defendants Michael Leahy for insurance law Denis Moriarty for insurance law Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy and Denis J. Moriarty Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at wbaum@hbblaw.com Mr. Leahy may be contacted at mleahy@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at dmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

March 19, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- Housing starts plummeted in February by the most since 2011 as plunging temperatures and snow became the latest hurdles for an industry struggling to recover. Work began on 897,000 houses at an annualized rate, down 17 percent from January and the fewest in a year, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday in Washington. The pace was slower than the most pessimistic projection in a Bloomberg survey of 81 economists. “Today’s report leaves me a little concerned,” said Michelle Meyer, deputy head of U.S. economics at Bank of America Corp. in New York. “While the initial reaction is to dismiss much of the drop because of the bad weather, the level of home construction continues to be depressed.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News
Michelle Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net

---

Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has dismissed an appeal of a summary judgment in the case Bella Investments, Inc. v. Multi Family Services, Inc. MFS was hired by Bella to be the general contractor for a hotel in Gardendale, Alabama. MFS hired various subcontractors, including the architect for the project. After completion of the hotel in April, 2006, Bella made requests for MFS to repair cracked floor tiles.

In August, 2008, Bella sued MFS, the architect, and various fictitiously named defendants. Subsequently, Bella amended its complaint, naming some of the fictitiously named defendants.

MFS in turn claimed that Bella’s claims were void under the statute of limitations and that Bella was in beach of contact by failing to pay MFS the full amount owed. MFS moved for summary judgment under the statute of limitations, which was granted by the court.

Bella requested that the court “alter, amend, or vacate its summary judgment order.” When this was denied, Bella appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Appeals refused to vacate the summary judgment as claims that form part of the case against MFS are also part of Bella’s claims against the other defendants. For this reason, the court upheld the summary judgment.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

December 10, 2015 — Sarah Mulholland – Bloomberg
Blackstone Group LP agreed to buy 32 multifamily properties for about $2 billion from Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC as the private equity giant expands its push into the U.S. apartment market. The buildings, with a total of 10,399 units, are spread throughout the country in states such as California, Florida, Washington and New York, Greystar said in a statement Tuesday. The Charleston, South Carolina-based company, the largest U.S. apartment manager, will continue to oversee the properties. Peter Rose, a Blackstone spokesman, declined to comment on the transaction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Mulholland, Bloomberg

---

Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

February 27, 2019 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario
In Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2/8/19 No. A150833), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by the plaintiff based on the erroneous conclusion of an attorney who she had consulted (but who had not yet appeared as counsel in her case) that the applicable statute of limitations had not yet expired. In reality, the limitations period had expired on the same date plaintiff had filed her complaint in propria persona. The plaintiff later retained the attorney on a limited basis to present the motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) based on the attorney’s affidavit of fault. Therein, the attorney testified that he had advised the plaintiff to dismiss her action voluntarily based on a misinterpretation of the applicable limitations period, which the attorney characterized as having been based on his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” Section 473 provides two distinct provisions for relief from default or dismissal – one is discretionary, while the other is mandatory. Discretionary relief is available in the case of an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In contrast, mandatory relief is available where the resulting dismissal was caused by an attorney’s mistake, whether or not excusable. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court reasoned that the plaintiff could not rely upon Section 473(b) because (1) the attorney did not represent the plaintiff at the time and (2) this provision did not apply to the voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---