SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Temecula Office Secures Approval for Development of 972-Acre Community on Behalf of Pulte Homes

December 27, 2021 — Lewis Brisbois
Temecula, Calif. (December 7, 2021) – Temecula Partners Kelly Black and Samuel Alhadeff, along with Associate Mark Mercer, recently represented Pulte Homes in securing unanimous approval from the Murrieta City Council and the Murrieta Planning Commission for a large-scale 972-acre development known as the Murrieta Hills development. As described by local media including The Press-Enterprise, Menifee 24/7, and the Murrieta Patch, the Murrieta Hills development will be located just south of Menifee and east of Wildomar. It will include 750 homes – 522 single-family units and 228 multi-family dwellings. The project will also include an 18-acre commercial center with plans for shopping, dining, lodging, and office space. In addition, 619 of the 972 acres will be dedicated as natural open space and will be overseen by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. The project will be built in three phases, with the first phase scheduled to be completed by 2023 and the final phase to be completed in 2031. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff

May 24, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In the next case, Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. 60 Cal.App.5th 1078 (2021), the 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a $7 million personal injury verdict against an asbestos-cement pipe manufacturer despite exculpatory testimony from the plaintiff, holding that the testimony was an issue of witness credibility rather than sufficiency of the evidence, and holding that the trial court’s denial of a jury instruction requested by the pipe manufacturer was appropriate because, while the requested jury instruction was a recitation of undisputed facts, the purpose of jury instructions is to recite the law rather than facts, even undisputed ones. The Morgan Case Norris Morgan was exposed to asbestos at construction sites where he worked in the 1970s and 80s. After he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2017, Morgan and his wife sued a number of defendants, including J-M Manufacturing for personal injuries and loss of consortium. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Appraisal Ordered After Carrier Finds Loss Even if Cause Disputed

April 04, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court ordered an appraisal when the parties differed on the amount of loss to the dwelling even when the carrier contended the dispute was over the cause of the loss. Khaleel v Amguard Ins. Co., No. 21 C 992, Memorandum Opinion and Order (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2022). The order is here. Plaintiffs home was damaged by wind and hail. A claim was submitted to Amguard for damage to the roof. Amguard found there was hail damage to the soft metal vents on the roof and estimated repair costs to be $3,815.16. Amguard found no damage to the roof itself. Plaintiffs contended there was additional damage to the roof. Plaintiffs demanded an appraisal. Amguard rejected the appraisal demand, claiming that the damage to the roof was due to wear and tear, and therefore constituted an excluded cause under the Policy. Plaintiff filed suit. After Amguard answered, plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022

May 16, 2022 — Matthew C. Lewis & Nicole R. Kardassakis - Payne & Fears
A new, third revised version of the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (“ETS”) has been approved by Cal/OSHA, and is expected to go into effect on May 6, 2022. This updated ETS will likely be in effect through Dec. 31, 2022. The language still needs to be reviewed, finalized, and filed with the Secretary of State by the Office of Administrative Law, but a redline of the proposed changes that Cal/OSHA has approved is available here. Much of the previous ETS (which took effect in January 2022, and we discussed here) will remain in effect. But the new version includes some key changes, including the following:

• Employers will now have similar obligations toward employees who are fully vaccinated and employees who are not fully vaccinated with respect to testing and face coverings. Employers must make COVID-19 testing available at no cost to all symptomatic employees during the employee’s paid time, regardless of the employee’s vaccination status. Employers also must make respirators available to all employees upon request, again regardless of the employee’s vaccination status.

Reprinted courtesy of Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and Nicole R. Kardassakis, Payne & Fears Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Ms. Kardassakis may be contacted at nrk@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Building Inspector Refuses to State Why Apartments Condemned

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Lockport, New York, “more than two dozen tenants have been locked out of their apartment building…but they have yet to find out why,” according to WIVB news. Brian Belson, Lockport’s building inspector, condemned the building and ordered the tenants to leave, providing only 15 minutes advanced warning. Once all of the tenants were out, the first floor windows and doors were boarded up. At first, tenants were told that they would be able to return in a few days, but now they are being told it could be weeks. However, WIVB News reported that Brian Belson has not returned any of their phone calls, so they have “filed a Freedom of Information request at Town Hall, seeking that information.” Belson has five days to respond to the request. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado Supreme Court Decision Could Tarnish Appraisal Process for Policyholders

September 16, 2019 — Michael V. Pepe - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On June 24, 2019, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the plain language of appraisal provisions in insurance policies, requiring “impartial appraisers,” direct appraisers to be “unbiased, disinterested, and unswayed by personal interest,” regardless of who hires them, and prohibits the party-appointed appraisers from acting as advocates. A common and attractive alternative dispute resolution option, the appraisal process usually entails the policyholder and insurer each hiring their own appraiser, who estimates how much the claim is worth. These appraisers also select a third-party umpire, and if they cannot agree upon one, a court appoints one. The umpire analyzes the conflicting estimates and presents a number to resolve the dispute. If two of the three parties agree with the outcome, the number becomes binding. Owners Ins. Co. v. Dakota Station II Condo. Ass'n, Inc.1 began when Dakota Station II Condominium Association Inc. (“Dakota”) and its insurer, Owners Insurance Company (“Owners”) could not agree on how to value two claims arising out of weather damage. To settle the differences and come to a resolution, Dakota invoked the appraisal provision in the insurance policy instructing each party to select its own “competent and impartial appraiser.” Ultimately, a court-appointed umpire considered six cost categories in dispute and adopted four of Owners’ estimates and two of Dakota’s. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Pepe may be contacted at mvp@sdvlaw.com

---

Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule

September 12, 2023 — Katherine Dempsey - The Subrogation Strategist
In Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thangavel, No. 379, 2022, 2023 Del. LEXIS 227, the Supreme Court of Delaware (Supreme Court) considered whether the Sutton Rule prevented the plaintiff from pursuing subrogation against the defendants. As applied in Delaware, the Sutton Rule explains that landlords and tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy unless a tenant’s lease clearly expresses an intent to the contrary. If the Sutton Rule applies, the landlord’s insurer cannot pursue the tenant for the landlord’s damages by way of subrogation. Here, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Sutton Rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to hold the tenants liable for the landlord’s damages. In Thangavel, the plaintiff, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), provided property insurance to Seaford Apartment Ventures, LLC (Landlord) for a residential property in Delaware. Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy (Tenants) leased an apartment (the Premises) from Landlord and signed a lease. Insurer alleged that Tenants hit a sprinkler head while flying a drone inside the Premises which caused water to spray from the damaged sprinkler head, resulting in property damage to the Premises. Landlord filed an insurance claim with Insurer, who paid Landlord $77,704.06 to repair the damage. Insurer then sought to recover the repair costs from Tenants via subrogation. 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

---

Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

October 10, 2022 — Kerianne Kane Luckett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Can an indemnification clause in a commercial lease obligate a tenant’s insurer to defend a landlord? Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York said, “Yes!” On August 9, 2022, the district court issued a decision in ConMed Corp. vs. Federal Insurance Company, holding that the indemnification clause in a policyholder’s lease triggered the insurer’s duty to defend the landlord in an action arising out of the tenant’s negligence. Facts of the Case ConMed is a medical technology company that leases warehouse space in Georgia from Breit Industrial Canyon (“the Landlord”) to sterilize its medical equipment. ConMed’s employees filed suit against ConMed and a contractor that performed the sterilization, alleging injuries caused by exposure to excessive amounts of chemicals used in the sterilization process (the “ConMed Action”). Thereafter, ConMed’s employees filed a separate lawsuit against the Landlord, alleging that the Landlord permitted storage of unsafe levels of the chemicals at the warehouse without adequate ventilation (the “Landlord Action”). The lease agreement required ConMed to indemnify the Landlord “except in the event of, and to the extent of, Landlord’s negligence or willful misconduct.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne Kane Luckett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Luckett may be contacted at KKane@sdvlaw.com

---