Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

November 06, 2018 — Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis & Ashley Kellgren - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
The State of Florida has long been known as one of the most challenging jurisdictions for insurance carriers in the context of bad faith – to say the least. Two recent appellate decisions have taken an already difficult environment and seemingly “upped the ante” in what constitutes good faith claims handling in the context of third-party liability claims. Set forth below is an analysis of the Bannon v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. and Harvey v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. decisions. Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP attorneys Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis and Ashley Kellgren Mr. Kiernan may be contacted at mkiernan@tlsslaw.com Ms. Curtis may be contacted at lcurtis@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kellgren may be contacted at akellgren@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The latest building news out of New Hampshire is somewhat mixed. Yes, there has been an increase of seventeen percent in the value of future residential construction on the state. But that’s not enough to offset the general slide in the value of future construction overall. The New Hampshire Business Review reports that the state saw a four percent drop in the cost of planned construction, comparing March 2012 to March 2013. The total value of the drop was shared between the twelve percent drop in nonresidential construction and the fifty-two percent drop in infrastructure building, each of which were more than $4 million less than in the prior year. The rise in residential construction could not make up the loss in other areas. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?

February 18, 2015 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
In Colorado it is well recognized that an insurer has a broad duty to defend its policyholder against pending claims. An insurer’s duty to defend is triggered when the underlying complaint against the insured alleges any set of facts that might fall within the coverage policy. Greystone Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance, Co., 661 F.3d 1272, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011). Even if the insurer’s duty to defend is not clear from the pleadings filed against the insured, the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the claim is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage. Id. If there is any doubt as to whether a theory of recovery falls within the policy coverage, such doubt is decided in favor of the insured and the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered. Id. In order to avoid this duty to defend, an insurer must show that an exemption to the policy applies and that no other basis exists for coverage under the policy. In Cornella Brothers, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2014 WL 321335 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2015), the Court was to determine whether Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) had a duty to defend a lawsuit filed against its insured, Cornella Brothers, Inc. (“Cornella”). The underlying lawsuit alleged construction defects at a recharging facility. Upon being named a party to the underlying litigation, Cornella provided notice to Liberty Mutual and demanded that Liberty Mutual defend Cornella. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at mcleroy@hhmrlaw.com

Condo Developers Buy in Washington despite Construction Defect Litigation

October 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Marc Stiles writing for Puget Sound Business Journal stated that “[t]he belief that contractors have been scared off by the legal liabilities that come with [condo] projects doesn't seem to hold water.” He interviewed Suzi Morris, of Lowe Enterprises, who plans on building a new condo tower in Seattle this November. Morris stated that they didn’t have any problems getting construction bids for the 24-story tower. According to the Puget Sound Business Journal, “The development team is trying to head off construction defect claims by planning and documenting with photos their work.” Stiles did admit that an unnamed “source in Seattle who consults on condo projects knows of two large general contracting companies that won't bid on condo projects because of” potential construction defect litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

March 22, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly.- Insurance Law Hawaii

The insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the insured's claim for collapse coverage was rejected by the Supreme Court of New York. Parauda v. Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 269 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 25, 2018).

The insureds submitted a claim to Encompass for damage to the brick siding, or façade, of their home, which was bulging near the front door. Encompass hired H2M Architects and Engineers to inspect the home and issue a report. H2M determined that the brick façade near the front door was separated from the house. Photos showed that the bricks had separated, the mortar joints were cracked, and there were cracks and deterioration in the mortar. H2M concluded that the brick façade was in poor condition and need repairs and/or replacement. H2M concluded that the separation of the brick façade was caused by water infiltration behind the wood trim and brick façade, occurring over a several year period. Encompass denied the claim based upon exclusions for "freezing, thawing," "wear and tear," and "inadequate maintenance."

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

Proposed California Legislation Would Eliminate Certain Obstacles to Coverage for Covid-19 Business Income Losses

July 20, 2020 — James Hultz & Alan Packer – Newmeyer Dillion
On July 2, 2020, the California Legislature amended California Assembly Bill 1552 to help policyholders seeking business interruption coverage for their COVID-19 losses. The draft legislation states the need for the legislation to go into immediate effect in "order to protect the solvency of businesses that were forced to close their doors or limit business" due to the pandemic. If adopted, the proposed legislation would apply to all commercial insurance policies providing coverage for business interruption in effect on and after March 4, 2020. The proposed legislation would create rebuttable presumptions in favor of coverage for losses due to COVID-19 under Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority and Ingress and Egress policy provisions. For instance, the proposed legislation would create presumptions that COVID-19 was present at the insured premises and caused damage to the insured property. The draft legislation also specifies that the virus shall not be considered a pollutant unless the policy specifies otherwise. The ultimate impact of the draft legislation is unclear however, given that it specifically "does not affect the applicability of any policy provision, including any language addressing loss or damage caused by a virus." For additional information, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing NDCovid19Response@ndlf.com or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000. About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Reprinted courtesy of James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion and Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine

September 26, 2022 — Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Texas jury has found that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus on the property of Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) caused “physical loss or damage” and resulting economic loss, triggering coverage under BCM’s commercial property insurance program. The jury awarded BCM over $48 million following a three-day trial; the award consisted of $42.8 million in business interruption, $3.3 million in extra expense, and $2.3 million in damage to research projects. The verdict came after the court denied the insurers’ pre-trial motion for summary judgment, rejecting the insurers’ contention that a virus cannot—as a matter of law—cause physical loss or damage to property. In denying the motion, the court held that whether the presence of the virus causes physical loss or damage presents a question of fact for the jury to resolve; a copy of the order rejecting the insurers’ summary judgment argument can be found here. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

August 24, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed how fraud and contracts are often like oil and water. While there are exceptions, these exceptions are few and far between here in Virginia. The reason for the lack of a mix between these two types of claims is the so-called “source of duty” rule. The gist of this rule is that where the reason money is owed from one party to another (the source of the “duty to pay”) is based in the contract, Virginia courts will not allow a fraud claim. The rule was created so that all breaches of contract, claims that are at base a failure to fulfill a prior promise and could, therefore, be considered to be based on a prior “lie,” would not be expanded to turn into tort claims. This rule has been extended to claims that most average people (read, non-lawyers) would consider fraud because there was no intent to fulfill the contract at the time it was signed. Just so you don’t think that lawyers are exempt from this legal analysis, I point you to a recent case where a law firm sued a construction client of theirs for failure to pay legal fees. In EvansStarrett PLC v. Goode & Preferred General Contracting, the Fairfax County Circuit Court considered a motion by the Plaintiff law firm seeking to add a count of fraud to its breach of contract lawsuit. The Court considered the following facts. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES