Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

November 26, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The ever changing landscape of insurance coverage for contractors continues to be clarified in Texas. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Texas law in Crownover v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, concluding that contractors do have insurance coverage to cover claims that a project was not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner. In this case, the Crownovers hired a contractor to build a house. The contract contained a warranty-to-repair clause. Shortly after construction was completed, cracks began to appear in the walls and foundation, and there were problems with the heating and air conditioning system. The Crownovers demanded that the contractor repair the problems and the contractor refused. The Crownovers brought an arbitration proceeding against the contractor and prevailed, obtaining a judgment that the contractor must pay for repairs to the foundation and HVAC system. The contractor then filed for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court allowed the Crownovers to pursue their claim against the contractor’s insurer. 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

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2023 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

September 19, 2022 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that five Partners have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. In addition, four attorneys have been included in the 2023 Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch list. These recognitions include attorneys from the firm’s Hawthorne, NY; Chicago, IL; Palm Beach Gardens, FL; and St. Petersburg, FL offices. 2023 Best Lawyers® Hawthorne, NY

Lisa L. Shrewsberry – Commercial Litigation

Chicago, IL

Brian C. Bassett – Insurance Law

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

Rina Clemens – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

St. Petersburg, FL

Scot E. Samis – Appellate Practice
Lauren S. Curtis – Insurance Law

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

Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

July 06, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
AXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies. AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

August 20, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed statutes of limitation on construction claims in various contexts from issues with a disconnect on state projects to questions of continuous breach here at Construction Law Musings. For those that are first time readers, the statute of limitations is the time during which a plaintiff can bring its claim, whether under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), for breach of contract, or for any other legal wrong that was done to him, her or it by another. The range of limitations runs the gamut of times, for instance it is 5 years for breach of a written contract and 6 months for enforcement of a mechanic’s lien. This time period is calculated from the “accrual” of the right of action. “Accrual” is, in general terms, when the plaintiff was originally harmed or should have known it was harmed (depending on the particular cause of action). A recent case out of the Circuit Court of Norfolk, Virginia examined when a cause of action for a construction related claim under the VCPA accrued and thus whether the plaintiff’s claim was timely. In Hyde Park Free Will Baptist Church v. Skye-Brynn Enterprises Inc., the Court looked at the following basic facts (pay attention to the dates): The Plaintiff, Hyde Park Baptist Church, hired the Defendant, Skye-Brynn Enterprises, Inc., to perform certain roof repairs that were “completed” in 2015. Shortly after the work was done, in 2015, the Plaintiff informed Defendant that the roof still leaked and that some leaks were worse than before. The Defendant unsuccessfully attempted repair at the time. 14 months later in 2017, the church had other contractors examine the roof and opine as to its faulty installation. Also in 2017, the church submitted roof samples to GAF, the roof membrane manufacturer and in February 2018 GAF responded stating that the leaks were not due to manufacturing defects. The church filed its complaint on October 1, 2018 breach of contract, breach of warranty of workmanship and fraud in violation of the VCPA. Defendant responded with a plea in bar, arguing that the statute of limitations barred the claim. 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

Insurance Tips for Contractors

December 08, 2016 — Patrick McNamara - Porter Law Group
Many contractors contentedly accept the insurance policies presented to them by their insurance carriers. However, it is a much better practice to be an active participant in choosing the most appropriate coverage for your business and the specific jobs that you are performing. Use the following tips to be sure your company has the best and most comprehensive coverage.

Never purchase a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy with a “sunset” provision limiting coverage under Products & Completed Operations liability (P&CO) to a 2, 3 or 4-year term. Why? Because the California statute of limitations for construction defect claims is generally 10 years.
Never consider a “Claims-made” or “Modified Occurrence” coverage form which also have a built-in limitation as to the length or term of P&CO coverage. Example: If you purchase a claims-made policy and decide to “switch” your insurance to the preferred “occurrence” coverage form, unless a special provision is made prior to the new purchase, the claims-made coverage would become worthless after the sixty (60) day claims-reporting period.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com

Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

March 23, 2020 — Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Water damage, while one of the leading causes of loss under a property policy, often results in some of the most complex claims due to the intersection of exclusions, sublimits, and complex wording within the policy. One particularly difficult issue is whether water damage caused by a storm surge is covered by the flood sublimit, or under the general policy or water limit. In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s (“NJTC v. Lloyd’s”), the New Jersey Appeals Court found that the “flood” sublimit of the policy should not apply as the cause of the loss was a “named windstorm” and not a “flood.” In NJTC v Lloyd's the court was asked to determine whether a flood sublimit applied to losses sustained during Superstorm Sandy. The court found that although there was “flooding,” the water damage was more closely related to the “named windstorm”, and therefore, the $400 million policy limits should apply. The court focused its analysis on the definitions for “flood” and “named windstorm” and by applying the efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine which would apply. When reviewing the definitions within the property policies, the court determined that although the loss would qualify under the definition of “flood,” the policy also contained a definition for “named windstorm” which “more specifically encompasses the wind driven water or storm surge associated with a ‘named windstorm’”1. In addition, the policy did not specifically state that “storm surge” associated with a “named windstorm” should be considered a “flood” event and fall under the “flood” sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

OSHA: What to Expect in 2022

December 20, 2021 — Stephen E. Irving - Construction Executive
COVID-19 created great upheaval throughout the economy and the legal compliance world as well. The pandemic has been a great disruptor and has brought rules, regulations and related agency guidance that have served to overwhelm even the most conscientious and attentive employer. The welcomed arrival of COVID-19 vaccines, and now the perhaps less welcome OSHA vaccine mandate, simply add to an employer’s compliance burden. While OSHA is busy attempting to implement its vaccine/testing mandate, it also has numerous other significant matters in the works of which employers in the construction industry should be aware. These include new rule drafting and several national and regional emphasis programs, which illustrate OSHA’s current priorities. 1. The Vaccine Mandate Pursuant to a directive from President Biden, in October 2021, OSHA issued an emergency temporary standard implementing a mandate for all employers with more than 100 employees. This mandate requires that employees of such employers be vaccinated for COVID-19 or submit to regular testing. OSHA has also expressed interest in issuing a permanent standard and potentially expanding to include smaller employers. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen E. Irving, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

#12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In his article, “Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered,” attorney Tred R. Eyerly analyzed the Am. Home Assur. Co. case that involved a dispute between a developer and a subcontractor over fractured tiles: “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court first found that the fracturing of the stone floor tiles caused by the subcontractor's defective installation was the result of an 'occurrence.' There was no evidence that the subcontractor knew that its tile installation work was defective before the tiles fractured. Instead, the fracturing was an unexpected consequence of the defective installation.” Everly continues, “But there was no ‘property damage.’ For the subcontractor to prevail, the defective installation work had to be considered separate and distinct from the physical manifestation of the defective work. Under California law, coverage resulted from construction defects that involved physical injuries to other parts of the construction project.” Everly concludes, “Because there was no genuine issues of material fact as to the potential for coverage, there was no duty to defend.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES