SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

August 24, 2017 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Butler Weihmuller of Katz Craig LLP discussed Florida’s 10-year statute of repose law: “Under § 95.11(3)(c), the action must commence within 10 years after the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest.” However, Weihmuller explains that parties may disagree on the specific date For instance, in Busch v. Lennar Homes, LLC, Florida’s 5th DCA recently “reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a homeowner’s construction defect claim that was filed just beyond 10 years after the closing date on the property.” The previous decision had been based on the notion that the contract had been completed upon the date of closing. The 5th DCA declared that “a contract is not completed until both sides of a contract have been performed” and “pointed to the ‘inspection and punch-list clause’ of the contract.” The clause indicated that “[a]ny remaining items that Seller has agreed to correct will be corrected by Seller at Seller’s sole cost and expense prior to closing or at Seller’s option within a reasonable time after closing.” Since not all punch-list items had been completed prior to closing, the 5th DCA held that the contract had not been completed at closing, and therefore the statute of repose did not begin until the punch-items had been accomplished. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Federal Court in New York Court Dismisses Civil Authority Claim for COVID-19 Coverage

October 11, 2021 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
Courts nationwide have been grappling with coverage for business interruption claims arising from closures occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic, with mixed results by jurisdiction. A recent decision on the issue from the federal Southern District of New York sheds light on New York law regarding this pressing issue. In Elite Union Installations, LLC v. National Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 2021 WL 4155016 (Sept. 13, 2021), directives issued by governmental authorities required the insured construction company to shut its doors, leading to a layoff of some employees while others continued to work from home. The insured made a claim under its commercial property coverage for damage to its premises, which it claimed were rendered “uninhabitable” and required repair in the form of alterations to comply with social distancing requirements. In the ensuing coverage litigation, National Union moved to dismiss the complaint alleging covered first-party property damage defined in the policy as “direct physical loss of or damage to property.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

---

Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

October 26, 2020 — Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Restaurant and Bar Fire Caused by Electric Defect

February 04, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A fire at McGill’s Restaurant and Bar located in Schuyler, New York, resulted in “a total loss” according to the Little Fall Times. Schuyler Fire Chief Don Kane told the Little Fall Times, “no one was inside the building at the time of the fire, as the bar had closed at 2:30 a.m.” and the fire was reported at 3:52 a.m. Weather hindered the firefighters abilities to deal with the situation as “a small squall moved through the area.” An investigation concluded that an “electrical malfunction is to blame,” reported the Utica Observer-Dispatch. The Herkimer County Office of Emergency Services stated that the “fire was caused by an electrical defect within the base of the front wall.” The restaurant owner, who leased the building, “did not carry fire loss insurance for his business,” though the “building owner was insured,” according to the Utica Observer-Dispatch. Read the full story at The Little Falls Times... Read the full story at The Utica Observer-Dispatch... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

May 20, 2024 — David G. Jordan & William E. Phillips IV - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The "ensuing loss" clause is a provision that restores coverage for property insurance claims that are subject to certain policy exclusions, such as “faulty workmanship” and “faulty design.” It applies in cases where there is damage from a covered cause of loss that ensues, or results from, the excluded cause of loss. Courts across jurisdictions have grappled with interpreting the breadth of this clause, leading to varying conclusions regarding its scope and applicability. One of the primary challenges in interpreting “ensuing loss” lies in determining the ultimate cause of damage. Courts must ascertain whether the ensuing loss is sufficiently distinct from the excluded event to warrant coverage under the policy. This analysis often hinges on whether the cause of loss is thought to constitute a separate and independent occurrence or is merely a continuation or exacerbation of the excluded event. Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and William E. Phillips IV, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Mr. Phillips may be contacted at WPhillips@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA

April 11, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On April 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, rejected the challenges to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) decision to issue a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit to the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall), which is planning a large residential and commercial project in Los Angeles County near Santa Clarita, CA (the Newhall Ranch project). The Newhall Ranch project, which involves the discharge of dredge and fill materials into the Santa Clara River, has been scaled back and modified, and the Ninth Circuit held that it is consistent with the CWA, the Corps’ regulations and procedures, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Ninth Circuit provides an excellent primer on the Section 404 permitting process. The case is Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

April 28, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Daily Business Review reported that three lawsuits have been filed against the developers of Trump Towers in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida alleging cracked pool decks, sloping roofs, water intrusion, among other construction defects. While Gary Mars, the attorney for the associations, did not have an estimate of repair costs, an engineer hired by the unit owners listed over 300 defects in two of the towers, according to the Daily Business Review. Attorney Peri Rose Huston-Miller of Derrevere Hawkes Black & Cozad, counsel for Steven Feller (a defendant), stated their client is "aware of the complaints that have been filed and is confident the parties will work together toward a resolution of the issues alleged.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Court Grants Insured's Motion to Dismiss Construction Defect Case and Awards Fees to Insured

February 05, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The New York Supreme Court granted the insured's motion to dismiss the insurer's complaint seeking relief on its duty to indemnity and awarded fees to the insured. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Crystal Curtain Wall Sys. Corp., 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 22368 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 27, 2023). The case arose from a construction-related property damage action. Crystal entered a subcontract with the general contractor to design and install window and curtain systems in mixed residential and commercial buildings. When unit owners took possession, water infiltration during a rainstorm caused property damage and moldy conditions. The unit owners sued asserting claims against Crystal for the cost of repair or replacement of the allegedly defective curtain wall, damage to unit owners' personal property, diminution in value of the units, and delay damages consisting of increasing interest and carrying costs. 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

---