Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Attorney Fee Award Under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act

February 16, 2016 — William J. Taylor – White and Williams LLP
In late December, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dismissed, as improvidently granted, the appeal in Waller Corporation v. Warren Plaza, Inc., No. 6 WAP 2015 (December 21, 2015). As a result, the Superior Court’s holding in that case that there is no good faith exception to the attorney fee provision of the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, remains intact. In its decision in Waller, 95 A.3d 313 (Pa. Super. 2014), the Superior Court considered if there was a “good faith” exception to the interest and penalties provision of CASPA, 73 P.S. § 512(a), and whether there was a similar good faith exception to the attorney fee provision of the statute, 73 P.S. § 512(b). The court held that while an award of interest and penalties under § 512(a) could be denied if a party had a good faith basis for withholding payments due under a construction contract, no such exception exists for an award of attorney fees under § 512(b). Rather, an award of attorney fees is appropriate for the “substantially prevailing party” under a CASPA claim, and a claimant can be the substantially prevailing party even if the other party withheld payments in good faith. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com

Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies

March 06, 2022 — Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
The construction industry operates under the constant spectre of claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Fortunately, the law in most states treats these claims as covered under commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies. A small minority of states take a much stingier view. In a newly decided case, a Pennsylvania federal court confirmed that Pennsylvania belongs to this small group of states that regard construction claims as not worthy of liability insurance coverage. Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Howard Lynch Plastering, Inc., No. CV 21-3977, 2022 WL 445768, (E.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2022). Main St. involves a typical construction defect case: W.B. Homes (“W.B.”) developed a residential community, contracting with various trades to build the homes. W.B. required these subcontractors to obtain liability insurance covering their work and, when homeowners sued W.B. for damages due to allegedly faulty work, W.B. tendered the claim to these insurers. One of them, Main Street Assurance Co. (“Main Street”) then sued W.B. for declaratory relief, arguing that under Pennsylvania law, it had no duty to defend W.B. Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

January 10, 2018 — Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter

On December 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) held in GrafTech International, Ltd., et al. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., et al., No. 105258 that coverage for alleged injurious exposures to coal tar pitch was barred by a liability insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants that they were exposed to hazardous substances in GrafTech products supplied to Alcoa as early as 1942.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

GA Federal Court Holds That Jury, Not Judge, Generally Must Decide Whether Notice Was Given “As Soon as Practicable” Under First-Party Property Damage Policies

November 01, 2021 — Edward M. Koch & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams
Insurance policies covering first-party property damage often require insureds to notify insurers of a loss “as soon as practicable.” Where an insured may or may not have given notice “as soon as practicable,” the issue arises as to who should determine whether the insured complied with this requirement: the judge or the jury? On October 6, 2021, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia addressed this issue in Vintage Hospitality Group LLC v. National Trust Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-90-CDL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192651 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2021). In Vintage Hospitality, a July 2018 hailstorm damaged the roof of a hotel owned by the policyholder. The policyholder did not discover leaks from the hotel roof until two months later, in September 2018. The policyholder, not realizing that the hailstorm had caused the leaks, unsuccessfully attempted to repair the leaks. Eventually, in February 2020—19 months after the hailstorm and 17 months after the policyholder discovered the leaks—the policyholder hired a construction company to evaluate the roof. It was not until then that the policyholder learned that the hotel had sustained hail damage from the July 2018 storm. The policyholder notified its July 2018 first-party property damage insurer a few days later. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

January 15, 2019 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is pleased to announce the election of Siobhan Cole, Matthew Ferrie, Joshua Galante, Rochelle Gumapac, Geoffrey Sasso and Benjamin Staherski to the partnership. The firm has also promoted Brandon Arber, Adam Berardi, Kevin Koscil and Greg Steinberg from associate to counsel. The newly elected partners and promoted counsel represent the wide array of practices that White and Williams offers its clients, including commercial and general litigation, corporate and securities, insurance coverage, product liability, subrogation and tax. These accomplished lawyers have earned this advancement based on their contributions to the firm and their practices. “We are delighted to elect these six lawyers to the partnership and promote four exceptional associates to counsel. The group demonstrates the breadth of services and the deep bench that we offer to our clients at White and Williams," said Patti Santelle, Managing Partner of the firm. “The contributions of this talented group have enhanced the growth and reputation of our firm and reflect our deep commitment to our clients. We look forward to their continued success.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- A Wrap Up

November 15, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Over the past four weeks, I’ve “mused” on the “stages” of a construction dispute. What started as a kernel of thought in my mind turned into what has seemed to be a popular set of four posts that I hope were both informative and interesting. Because of the great feedback I’ve gotten, I thought that I’d consolidate the posts into one so that my readers (thank you, by the way) will have them all in one place. Here they are: The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim– This post discussed the steps for setting out a claim under your construction contract and the steps to lay the groundwork should you need to move forward with a more formal means of collection. The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 2- Increase the Heat– This post discussed various methods to increase the heat on the party with whom you have a claim prior to litigation or arbitration. 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

If You Can’t Dazzle Em’ With Brilliance, Baffle Em’ With BS: Apprentices on Public Works Projects

October 24, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The “Big Four” when it comes to public works contracting on state and local projects in California are:

Registration with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”);
Payment of prevailing of wages and maintenance and submission of certified payroll;
Compliance with the “skilled and trained workforce” requirements on certain projects; and
Hiring apprentices on state and local public works projects with a value of $30,000 or more.

The next case, GRFCO, Inc. v. Superior Court, 89 Cal.App.5th 1295 (2023), discusses the last of these requirements. The case also reminded me of W.C. Field’s old saying – “If you can’t dazzle em’ with brilliance, baffle em’ with bullshit” – and which ended with expected results. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

November 04, 2019 — Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
California’s highest court held yesterday in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., that the state’s insurance notice-prejudice rule is a “fundamental public policy” for the purpose of choice of law analyses. This unanimous ruling, issued in response to certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, confirms and emphasizes California’s common law rule that policyholders who provide “late notice” may proceed with their insurance claim, absent a showing by the insurer of substantial prejudice. The California Supreme Court also extended the prejudice requirement, holding that a first-party insurer must show that it was prejudiced before denying coverage under a policy’s “consent provision,” which typically provides that the policyholder must obtain the insurer’s “consent” before incurring costs and expenses. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine and Michelle M. Spatz Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES