Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Contractor Definition Central to Coverage Dispute

July 22, 2024 — Stacy R. Goldscher & Tracy M. Lewis - Wood Smith Henning & Berman
How do you define the term "contractor?" In the case of California Specialty Insulation Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. B324805 (2024), the court ultimately honored the reasonable expectations of the insured and ordered that the insurer defend and indemnify in an underlying suit stemming from the policy. This case involves a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Allied) to California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI). The central issue is whether Allied World is obligated to defend and indemnify CSI against a negligence claim stemming from a construction site accident. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of a policy exclusion for bodily injury to employees of any "contractor," a term not defined in the policy. Factual Background In 2017 Air Control Systems. Inc. (Air Control) was contracted to perform improvement work at a Los Angeles building and subsequently hired CSI to install duct insulation. In 2019, Jason Standiford, and Air Control employee, filed a negligence lawsuit against CSI, alleging injuries from a 2017 incident where a CSI employee allegedly drove a scissor lift into a ladder Standiford was on, causing him to fall. CSI requested Allied World to defend it in the Standiford lawsuit. Initially, Allied World accepted the defense, but later withdrew, citing the Contractor Exclusion in the policy. CSI filed for declaratory relief, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of CSI, finding the term contractor ambiguous and construing it in CSI's favor. Allied World appealed the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Stacy R. Goldscher, Wood Smith Henning & Berman and Tracy M. Lewis, Wood Smith Henning & Berman Ms. Goldscher may be contacted at sgoldscher@wshblaw.com Ms. Lewis may be contacted at tlewis@wshblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions

February 03, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Joella v. Cole, 2019 PA Super. 313, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered whether a tenant, alleged by the landlord’s property insurance carrier to have carelessly caused a fire, was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s policy. The court found that the tenant was an implied co-insured because the lease stated that the landlord would procure insurance for the building, which created a reasonable expectation that the tenant would be a co-insured under the policy. Since the tenant was an implied co-insured on the policy, the insurance carrier could not maintain a subrogation action against the tenant. This case confirms that Pennsylvania follows a case-by-case approach when determining whether a tenant was an implied co-insured on a landlord’s insurance policy. The Joella case stems from a fire at an apartment building in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The landlord’s property insurance carrier paid the landlord $180,000 to repair the damages resulting from the fire. In March 2018, the insurer brought a subrogation action against Annie Cole, a tenant in the building, alleging that Ms. Cole’s negligent use of an extension cord caused the fire. Ms. Cole raised the affirmative defense that she was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy. The subrogating insurer filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Ms. Cole’s defense. In response, Ms. Cole filed a cross motion for partial judgment, arguing that because the lease specified that the landlord would maintain fire insurance for the building, there was a reasonable expectation that she would be a co-insured on that policy. The trial court found in favor of Ms. Cole, holding that the landlord’s insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against her because she was an implied co-insured of the landlord’s insurance policy under the terms of the lease. The landlord’s insurer filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

October 02, 2015 — Sho Chandra – Bloomberg
Companies stepped up hiring in September, indicating the U.S. job market is standing firm in the face of weaker global demand, according to a private report based on payrolls. A 200,000 increase in employment followed a revised 186,000 rise in the prior month, figures from the ADP Research Institute showed Wednesday. The median projection of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an advance of 190,000. The additions to company headcounts are consistent with resilient demand in the U.S. even as some industries face challenges of weaker overseas sales. Labor Department data on Friday are projected to show payroll gains accelerated this month compared with August. “The U.S. job machine continues to produce jobs at a strong and consistent pace,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania, said in a statement. Moody’s produces the figures with ADP. “Despite job losses in the energy and manufacturing industries, the economy is creating close to 200,000 jobs per month. At this pace, full employment is fast approaching.” Estimates in the Bloomberg survey ranged from gains of 120,000 to 215,000 after a previously reported August advance of 190,000. Goods Producers Goods-producing industries, which include manufacturers and builders, increased headcounts by 12,000, the ADP report showed. Hiring in construction climbed by 35,000, almost twice the 18,000 gain a month earlier. Factories cut 15,000 jobs in September, which was the biggest decline since December 2010. Payrolls at service providers increased by 188,000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sho Chandra, Bloomberg

A Duty to Design and Maintain Reasonably Safe Roadways Extends to All Persons. (WA)

February 25, 2014 — Natasha Khachatourians – Scheer & Zehnder LLP Liability Newsletter
Case: Lowman v. Wilbur, et al., 178 Wn.2d 165, 309 P.3d 3.87 (2013). Issue: If a passenger’s injuries are in fact caused by the placement of a utility pole too close to a roadway, can the injuries be deemed too remote for purposes of legal causation? NO. Facts: Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that lost control and collided with a utility pole that was 4.47 feet from the edge of the roadway. The vehicle’s driver was under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff sued the driver as well as the utility company and Skagit County for negligence. The trial court granted the utility company and Skagit County’s summary judgment motion, finding that the negligent placement of the utility pole was not a legal cause of plaintiff’s injuries. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a negligently placed utility pole could be the legal cause of a resulting injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Natasha Khachatourians, Scheer & Zehnder LLP
Ms. Khachatourians may be contacted at natashak@scheerlaw.com

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions

October 19, 2020 — Kean Maynard - The Subrogation Strategist
Courts are faced with the difficult task of drawing a line to determine when the failure to preserve evidence becomes culpable enough to permit a judicial remedy. In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cohen, No. 19-1947, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163681, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) made clear that a party is not entitled to a spoliation sanction without proof that the alleged spoliation was beyond accident or mere negligence. The District Court emphasized that when evidence goes missing or is destroyed, the party seeking a spoliation sanction must show that the alleged spoliation was intentional and that the alleged spoliator acted in “bad faith” before adverse inferences will be provided. In Cohen, Joshua Cohen (Cohen) rented a residential property to Lugretta Bryant (Bryant). Bryant’s property suffered damages as a result of a kitchen fire. Bryant’s insurer, proceeding as subrogee, hired a fire investigator to determine the cause and origin of the fire. Based on eyewitness testimony and examination of the burn patterns, the fire investigator concluded that the fire started at the General Electric (GE) microwave located in the kitchen. The investigator advised all parties to preserve the microwave so that a joint examination could take place with the property owner and GE present. In the following weeks, the tenant returned to the property to collect belongings and perform some cleaning in anticipation of repairs beginning. Importantly, the tenant claimed the microwave was preserved during these cleaning efforts and remained at the site as instructed. However, in the fall of 2017, one of Cohen’s workers discovered that the microwave was missing and its whereabouts remain unknown. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kean Maynard, White and Williams
Mr. Maynard may be contacted at maynardk@whiteandwilliams.com

Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

January 28, 2019 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
The Transbay Joint Powers Authority announced Jan. 10 that procurement has begun for the repair of the two fractured bottom flanges of the twin parallel girders that span 80 ft across Fremont Street in the 4.5-block-long Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco. TJPA shuttered the transit center on Sept. 25, less than six weeks after it had opened, after a ceiling installer noticed a crack in one of the bridgelike spans. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement

August 02, 2017 — Stella Szantova Giordano - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On July 14, 2017, the Trump administration released a statement indicating that the United States intends to sign the U.S. – EU bilateral insurance agreement. The announcement came several weeks after the Council of the European Union adopted a decision authorizing the signing of this agreement. The agreement attempts to “level the playing field for U.S. insurers and reinsurers operating in the EU.”[1] This U.S. – EU bilateral agreement is a direct response to EU’s January 2016 enactment of Solvency II. Solvency II is a legislative program implemented in all twenty-eight Member States, aimed at codifying EU insurance regulations in an attempt to protect policy holders and to incentivize risk management. We previously wrote about this comprehensive program of insurer regulatory requirements here. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

January 31, 2018 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent article published by Seattle Business Magazine, the Japanese manufacturer of the much-maligned tunnel machine (nicknamed “Bertha”) provided its version of events and its position to the public. The interview took place after executives from Hitachi Zosen were not invited to the ceremony celebrating Bertha’s breakthrough at the end of its two-mile journey underground Seattle. Ultimately, apparently, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), the general contractor for the project, and Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) agreed that Hitachi Zosen executives could attend the event, but they were not allowed to stand with other dignitaries on a specially-built viewing platform. The $3.2 billion Alaska Way Viaduct replacement project is embroiled in a number of legal controversies. Now that the tunnel is finished, Hitachi Zosen has finally decided to tell its side of the story. Hitachi’s problems started on December 5, 2013, three days after the tunnel-boring machine (“TBM”) hit a 120-foot long, eight-inch diameter steel well casing (the project DRB has determined that the pipe was a differing site condition), the TBM overheated and ground to a halt. The project was shut down almost two years while the TBM was being repaired. According to Hitachi Zosen, it always worked hard to get the job done. “We wanted to finish the tunnel and make Seattle happy with the results,” said Hidetoshi Hirata, the general manager for Hitachi Zosen. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES