SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

March 26, 2014 — David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith-Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Purcell v. Schweitzer (No. D063435 - filed February 24, 2014, certified for publication March 17, 2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld an order setting aside a stipulated default judgment for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim which had been agreed to by the parties to a settlement agreement, finding that it constituted an unenforceable penalty because the amount bore no reasonable relationship to the settling party’s actual damages resulting from a breach of the settlement agreement. In an agreement settling a breach of contract action seeking $85,000 in damages based on an unpaid debt, the plaintiff agreed to settle the claim and to accept $38,000 in 24 monthly installments, including interest on the unpaid principal at 8.5 percent. The agreement provided that payments were due on the first day of each month and to be considered “timely,” had to be received by the fifth day of each month. If any payment was not made on time, it was to be considered a breach of the entire settlement agreement, making the entire $85,000 original liability due pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment for such amount. The stipulation included language to the effect that the $85,000 figure accounted for the “economics” of further proceedings. The agreement also specified that the foregoing provision did not constitute an unlawful “penalty” or “forfeiture” and that defendant waived any right to an appeal and any right to contest or seek to set aside such a judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Smith may be contacted at gsmith@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Florida Governor Signs COVID-19 Liability Shield

May 17, 2021 — Andrea de Oña - Lewis Brisbois
On March 29, 2021, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law Florida Statute 768.38, granting significant protections to business entities, educational institutions, governmental entities, and religious institutions from claims related to COVID-19 if they made a good faith effort to follow guidelines to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The law is effective immediately and applies to actions filed after March 29, 2021. Recognizing the financial impact that the pandemic has had across the State of Florida, the new law aims to dissuade potential claimants from filing meritless claims for personal injuries, wrongful death, or other damages allegedly due to COVID-19 exposure in a few key ways. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrea de Oña, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Oña may be contacted at Andrea.deOna@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

October 21, 2024 — Edward M. Koch & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLP
Seeking to find some relief from business losses experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses turned to their property insurers for coverage for their lost income. A clear national trend emerged among courts deciding the issue, as most businesses could not establish coverage because they had not experienced a “direct physical loss of or damage to their covered property” as required by most policies. While this legal question may have become an afterthought for many attorneys, the question remained an open one in Pennsylvania while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered two contradictory holdings issued in the Superior Court on this topic. Compare Macmiles, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 286 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding there was no coverage for loss of use of a commercial property unaccompanied by any physical alteration or other physical condition that rendered the property unusable or uninhabitable) with Ungarean v. CNA, 286 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that the policy at issue was ambiguous and therefore the policy covered the insured for COVID-related business losses). Last week, the Supreme Court considered the Superior Court’s holdings in Macmiles and Ungarean and held, at long last, that COVID-19 did not cause a direct physical loss of or damage to covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Substitutions On a Construction Project — A Specification Writer Responds

July 03, 2022 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
In response to the post about Substitute Materials on a construction project, Phil Kabza explains how his company, SpecGuy, handles tracking of all such materials on a project. Phil writes: Excellent and important topic, about which there is much confusion among design professionals and contractors. We try to maintain definitions for:

• Pre-bid requests for prior approval of proposed comparable products where products are named in the specifications
• True pre-bid substitution requests that present an alternate type of product from that specified (ie., not “comparable” but perhaps suitable)
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

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

---

Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

August 11, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii


The homeowners sued their contractor, alleging the contractor had defectively constructed and failed to complete their home.  State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Vogelgesang, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72618 (D. Haw. July 6, 2011).  The homeowners' complaint pled, among other things, damage caused by breach of contract and negligence.  State Farm agreed to defend under a reservation of rights.



State Farm filed suit in federal court for declaratory relief.  Judge Mollway granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment.  Relying on the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeal's decision in Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010), Judge Mollway determined that the claims asserted in the underlying litigation arose from the contractor's alleged breach of contract.  Group Builders held that breach of contract claims based on allegations of shoddy performance were not covered under CGL policies.

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


---

Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

March 06, 2022 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
The Texas “eight corners” rule precludes insurers from disclaiming a defense obligation based on facts not alleged in the underlying pleadings. Texas federal and appellate courts have been issuing rulings addressing exceptions to the eight corners rule and recently sought guidance from the Texas Supreme Court on whether Texas law recognizes such exceptions to the “eight corners” rule. The Texas Supreme Court has now spoken on the issue. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., 65 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 440 (2022). In Monroe, David Jones contracted with 5D Drilling & Pump Services in the summer of 2014 to drill a 3,600-foot commercial irrigation well on his farmland. In 2016, Jones sued 5D for breach of contract and negligence relating to 5D’s drilling operations on Jones’s property. Jones’s pleading was silent as to when the damage flowing from 5D’s alleged acts of misconduct occurred. BITCO and Monroe stipulated that 5D’s drill struck a bore hole during 5D’s drilling operations in or around November 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

---

Malerie Anderson Named to D Magazine’s 2023 Best Lawyers Under 40

January 17, 2023 — Malerie Anderson - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Dallas, Texas (January 12, 2023) - Dallas Partner Malerie T. Anderson has been named to D Magazine’s 2023 Best Lawyers Under 40 list for Business/Commercial Litigation. This is her second year appearing on this list.  According to D Magazine, the attorneys on its Best Lawyers Under 40 list are representative of up-and-coming attorneys in Dallas, who are nominated by their peers outside their own firm. The magazine asks nominating lawyers to think about “which lawyers under 40, of those whose work you have witnessed firsthand, would you rank among the current best?”   Ms. Anderson regularly advises business entities, real estate brokers, and licensed real estate agents to prevent litigation and defends against claims of all kinds, including breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims. Her experience handling various disputes has led her to work closely with clients to develop and implement procedures to avoid future litigation.   Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Malerie Anderson, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at Malerie.Anderson@lewisbrisbois.com

---