SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson

August 04, 2021 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Although the focus of most subrogation cases is usually on proving liability, determining the appropriate measure of damages is just as important. Sometimes turning on a nuanced argument for recoverability, an adverse holding can significantly boost or reduce the total damages in a case. The Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District (Court) recently decided such an issue in a case involving subrogation, holding that the defendants owed much more than they originally anticipated. In Five Solas v. Ram Realty Servs., No. 4D19-2211 2021, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 7546, the Court reviewed the appropriate setoff in damages that the defendants were entitled to when measuring the recoverable damages. The Court reversed the lower court’s holding, which held that the defendants were entitled to a setoff that limited the jury’s award to $104,481.75. Instead the Court held that the defendants were only entitled to a setoff equal to the excess recovery over replacement cost. The case involves, among other things, property damage sustained by building owner Five Solas (Owner) and its lessee William Price, P.A. from a collapsed wall originating from the property of the defendants, Ram Realty Services, LLC and Sodix Fern, LLC d/b/a Alexander Lofts (collectively referred to as Defendants). Owner’s carrier, Foremost Insurance Company (Foremost), paid out its policy limit of $430,518.25 to Owner for damage to the building. Owner then pursued its claim against the tortfeasors for the remaining damages not paid by its carrier.[1] Foremost also pursued a subrogation claim, but settled its subrogation claim with Defendants, assigning its subrogation rights to Defendants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

“Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

June 15, 2017 — Kevin J. O'Connor - Peckar & Abramson. P.C.
Attacks on employers for alleged misclassification of workers—particularly independent contractors—are continuing unabated, and the risk of liability for employers operating in New York City just increased. New York City has just adopted sweeping regulations requiring written contracts with certain freelancers and independent contractors. Anyone doing business in that jurisdiction should take notice and take action to comply with the law. New York City’s “Freelance Isn’t Free Act,” N.Y.C. Administrative Code §§ 20-927 et seq. (“FIFA”) went into effect on May 15, 2017. This new law substantially regulates the relationship between a business and an independent contractor or “freelancer” working in New York City. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O'Connor, Peckar & Abramson. P.C.
Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com

---

California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

July 20, 2020 — Kelly Alhadeff-Black & Alexander N. Knaub - Lewis Brisbois
In a recent ruling, California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal clarified the need for supplemental environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose (6th Dist., May 18, 2020). Specifically, the court held that seeking additional discretionary approvals, such as regulatory permits, does not constitute a “new discretionary approval for the project” under the California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15162 (the CEQA Guidelines). In 2014, the City of San Jose approved a project that included the demolition and replacement of a wooden railroad bridge known as the Willow Glen Trestle (the Project). CEQA review for the Project was conducted via mitigated negative declaration (MND). The Project was quickly challenged by a local group called Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle, alleging that the City should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report based on the allegation that the Willow Glen Trestle constituted an historic resource for CEQA purposes. Ultimately, the City prevailed in that litigation (See Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose, et al. (6th Dist., 2016), which remanded the case to the trial court for further review consistent with the Court of Appeal’s verdict) with the court eventually finding that the City correctly analyzed and answered the question of historic resource classification and significance in reference to the Willow Glen Trestle. Reprinted courtesy of Kelly Alhadeff-Black, Lewis Brisbois and Alexander N. Knaub, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Alhadeff-Black may be contacted at Kelly.Black@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Knaub may be contacted at Alexander.Knaub@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Los Angeles and Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2022

November 08, 2021 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2022 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with six metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles

• Tier 1
• Insurance Law
• Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
• Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
• Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs

• Tier 2
• Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Orange County

• Tier 2
• Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---

Catch 22: “If You’re Moving Dirt, You Need to Control Your Dust” (But Don’t Use Potable Water!)

February 18, 2015 — Stephen McKae – California Construction Law Blog
Returning from an Oregon vacation this past Summer along I-5, I found frequent reminders of the extraordinary drought conditions prevailing across California. A grey smoky gloom blanketed the California-Oregon border from Ashland to Weed from at least five wildfires. The prediction of rains in the north state was more curse than blessing as lightning threatened to touch off tender-dry fuel in the forests and start more fires. Farmers tilling fields produced massive dust clouds. And under the I-5 bridge along the Sacramento River arm of Lake Shasta, the lake had receded to the original streambed. On NOAA’s Palmer Drought Severity Index, nearly all of California is listed as in a condition of extreme or severe drought, and the Governor has issued a Proclamation of Continued State of Emergency requiring water conservation measures affecting all California residents. Indeed, early August news reports indicate that hopes of relief from an El Nĩno year are waning. The State Water Resources Control Board’s Emergency Regulation No. 2014 issued July 15 mandates action to reduce water use and require larger water suppliers to activate their Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The emergency regulation will remain in effect until April 25, 2015 unless extended due to ongoing drought conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen McKae, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. McKae may be contacted at smckae@wendel.com

---

Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

January 12, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court, district of Hawaii, recently granted the insured's motion for remand. Catholic Foreign Mission Society of Am., Inc. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., Civ. No. 14-00420, Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Remand and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (D. Haw. Dec. 30, 2014) [Order here]. [Full disclosure - our office represents the insured, Maryknoll]. Maryknoll was sued in several lawsuits filed in Hawaii state court by victims of alleged sexual abuse occurring as far back as the 1950s by members of the clergy. Maryknoll was insured during these periods under liability policies issued by various carriers. The successor of Royal Globe Insurance Company, Arrowood Indemnity Company, agreed to defend some of the underlying lawsuits, but declined to defend others. The Travelers Companies, Inc. refused to defend. 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

---

Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

May 19, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly

The importance of careful preparation and documentation was the take away lesson in a Texas bad faith case, C.K. Lee v. Catlin Specialty Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19145 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2011).



C.K. Lee owned a commercial shopping center in Houston. Catlin issued a commercial property policy to Lee. On September 12, 2008, Hurricane Ike hit and caused substantial property damage throughout the Texas Gulf Coast area. On September 24, 2008, Lee submitted a claim for damage to the roof of his shopping center to Catlin.



Catlin hired Engle Martin to represent its interests in adjusting the claim. Engle Martin eventually adjusted over 200 Ike-related claims for Catlin.



In November 2008, Engle Martin and Emergency Services Inc., retained by Lee, inspected Lee’s property. Engle Martin observed evidence of roof repairs that had apparently been made both before and after Hurricane Ike. Engle Martin decided it was necessary to use an infrared scan of the roof to help identify which damages, if any, were attributable to wind and which, if any, were attributable to sub par, prior repairs or natural deterioration.



Engle Martin retained Project, Time & Cost (PT&C) to conduct the infrared inspection. PT&C’s inspection determined there was no wind-related damage to the roof and no breaches or openings created by wind. Instead, the roof had exceeded its life expectancy and was in need of replacement due to normal wear and weathering. Consequently, Catlin decided that the damage to Lee’s roof was not caused by winds from Hurricane Ike.



Meanwhile, Lee’s contractor, Emergency Services, prepared a report estimating that the total cost of repairing the roof would be $871,187. Engle Martin’s estimate for repair of the roof was $22,864.



Lee filed suit for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. Catlin moved for summary judgment on all claims but breach of contract, arguing that because there was a bona fide dispute concerning the cause of the damages and whether they were covered under the policy, there was no evidence of bad faith or violations of the Texas Insurance Code.



Read the full story…

 

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

June 06, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It all started with a tree. A eucalyptus tree to be exact. What followed is one of the more important cases to be decided under Business and Professions Code section 7031 in recent years. Yes, that Section 7031. The statute variously described by the state’s courts as “harsh[ ],” draconian” and “unjust,” but, importantly, nevertheless valid. Under Section 7031, an unlicensed contractor is barred from seeking compensation for work requiring a contractor’s license. This has been called the “shield.” However, in addition to the “shield,” project owners can also employ Section 7031’s “sword,” and seek disgorgement of all monies paid to an unlicensed contractor. Section 7031’s “shield” and “sword” applies even if the project owner knew that the contractor was unlicensed. They also apply even if the unlicensed contractor’s work was flawless. And they also apply even if a contractor was unlicensed during a portion of its work. This is because, as courts have stated, Section 7031 is a consumer protection statute intended to protect the public from unlicensed contractors and applies irrespective of the equities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---