Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Insured's Complaint for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Adequately Pleads Consequential Damages

March 27, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court overturned the trial court's dismissal of the insured's complaint seeking consequential damages. D.K. Prop. Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v, Pa., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 329 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 17, 2019). The insured's building began to shift and exhibit structural damage, including cracks, after construction began in an adjoining building. The insured submitted a claim under its commercial insurance policy. The insurer did not pay the claim, nor did it disclaim coverage. The insured sued, alleging breach of contract for failure to pay covered losses under the policy. The second cause of action was for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint also requested consequential damages in connection with each cause of action. The trial court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the claim for consequential damages. 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

California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

June 08, 2020 — Gregory S. Capps & Michael E. DiFebbo - White and Williams LLP
On April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that held a policyholder is entitled to access available excess coverage under any excess policy once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court of California, case number S244737. In its unanimous decision adopting this “vertical exhaustion” requirement, the court rejected the “horizontal exhaustion” rule urged by the policyholder’s excess insurers, under which the policyholder would have been able to access an excess policy only after it had exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. In 1990, Montrose sought coverage under primary policies and multiple layers of excess policies issued for periods from 1961 through 1985 for environmental damage liabilities arising from its production of insecticide in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. The ongoing dispute currently arises out of Montrose’s Fifth Amended Complaint which was filed in 2015 seeking declarations concerning exhaustion and the manner in which Montrose may allocate its liabilities across the policies. Each of the excess policies at issue contained a requirement of exhaustion of underlying coverage. The various policies described the applicable underlying coverage in four main ways: (1) some policies contained a schedule of underlying insurance listing all of the underlying policies in the same policy period by insurer name, policy number, and dollar amount; (2) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and a schedule of underlying insurance on file with the insurer; (3) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and identified one or more of the underlying insurers; and (4) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance that corresponds with the combined limits of the underlying policies in that policy period. The excess policies also provided, in various ways, that “other insurance” must be exhausted before the excess policy can be accessed. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Michael E. DiFebbo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. DiFebbo may be contacted at difebbom@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

November 12, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Despite the need to shore up the ceiling, the building was not in a state of collapse under the language of the policy. Ravinia Vouge Cleaners v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123594 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2019). Ravinia Cleaners held a property policy issued by Travelers for the building from which it operated its dry-cleaning business. On February 2, 2015, there was heavy snowfall. On February 4, Ravinia reported to Travelers a leak coming from the ceiling. A temporary "shoring " was placed on the ceiling. Ravinia reported to Travelers that there was damage to the roof on February 25, 2015. Travelers hired an engineer who observed a buckling truss and roof displacing downward. The inspector recommended that the building be vacated and not occupied until adequate shoring was in place. Travelers denied coverage because the building was in a state of imminent collapse which was caused by the weight of ice and snow, and defective construction of the truss system. The policy excluded damage relating to a "collapse of a building." Collapse was defined by the policy as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building," such that the building could not be occupied for its intended purpose. There were exceptions to the exclusion, however, if the cause of the collapse was: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred after construction. The policy also excluded damage from a building being in a state of imminent collapse unless the damage was caused by: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred during construction. 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

Co-Housing Startups Fly in the Face of Old-School NYC Housing Law

December 18, 2022 — Amelia Pollard & Diego Lasarte - Bloomberg
A room in an eight-bedroom Bed-Stuy brownstone with “charming views.” A five-bedroom “modern Manhattan” home. In a housing market as hot as New York City’s, these units advertised on co-housing companies’ websites sound promising. According to the city’s housing regulations, however, neither is legal. That hasn’t stopped companies from offering the rooms, as renters clamor for affordable living space. With the average studio apartment in Manhattan going for nearly $3,100 a month, newcomers to the city often find living with multiple roommates to be their best affordable-housing option. It’s a trend that startups have jumped on, and one some experts endorse as a way to quickly scale up affordable housing — even though municipal housing laws aren’t on board yet. The reality is that in many cities, housing laws that limit the number of unrelated individuals in a dwelling are still in place. New York, for instance, doesn’t allow more than three unrelated people to live in the same unit. To be sure, New Yorkers often break that law, as expensive housing forces people to find roommates through friends or on sites like Craigslist. But multimillion-dollar companies breaking that law is new. Reprinted courtesy of Amelia Pollard, Bloomberg and Diego Lasarte, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Real Case, Real Lessons: Understanding Builders’ Risk Insurance Limits

August 12, 2024 — David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
In the recent case of 5333 Mattress King LLC v. Hanover Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado provided significant insights into the limits of builders’ risk insurance policies. Mattress King LLC, a warehouse owner, faced a substantial loss when a subcontractor drove a crane over and damaged the warehouse’s concrete floor slab during construction. Despite having a builders’ risk insurance policy with Hanover Insurance Company, coverage was denied, leading to litigation. Applicable Policy Provisions The policy in question was a Commercial Marine/Commercial Lines Builders’ Risk insurance policy. Builders’ risk insurance is designed to cover direct physical loss to covered property during construction unless the loss is excluded or limited by the policy. Key exclusions of the policy at issue included losses caused by faulty, inadequate, or defective:

Planning, zoning, surveying, or development
Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, or compaction
Materials used in construction or renovation
Maintenance of the covered property

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace

February 25, 2014 — Victoria Stilwell – Bloomberg
Home prices in the U.S. climbed at a slower pace in the year through December, pointing to a moderation in the market that will help keep more properties within reach for prospective buyers. The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values in 20 cities rose 13.4 percent from December 2012 after increasing 13.7 percent in the year ended in November, the group said today in New York. It was the first deceleration since June. The gain matched the median estimate of 33 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. Price appreciation is slowing as rising mortgage rates combined with harsh winter weather to cool home purchases over the past few months. Smaller increases mean more homes will remain affordable as the labor market improves, helping maintain the rebound in residential real estate that has boosted growth. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
Ms. Stilwell may be contacted at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net

Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

May 16, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner

July 26, 2017 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Subcontractors on public projects in Washington State will no longer be required to wait until final acceptance of the project to get their retainage money. A new statute, which goes into effect on July 23, 2017 and applies only to Washington public projects, will allow subcontractors to get their retainage sooner. Under prior law, a subcontractor could only get its retainage prior to final acceptance if the general contractor provided a retainage bond to the public owner to secure a release of the general contractor’s retainage and the subcontractor then provided a similar retainage bond to the general contractor in the amount of its own retainage. If the general contractor decided to not provide a retainage bond to the owner, the subcontractor would be forced to wait until final acceptance of the project before it could get paid its retainage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at bhill@ac-lawyers.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES