SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

October 11, 2017 — Malcom Ranger-Murdock - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently determined that manuscript additional insured endorsements (AIEs), which purportedly provided coverage for ongoing operations only, were ambiguous. The court also found the insurer that issued the policies, American Safety Indemnity Co. (American Safety), acted in bad faith due to its systematic efforts to deny coverage to general contractors as additional insureds. In Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co.,1 Pulte Home Corporation (Pulte Home), a general contractor, sued American Safety for failure to defend Pulte Home as an additional insured in connection with two underlying construction defect lawsuits. American Safety contended that it did not have a duty to defend Pulte Home because the loss occurred after the construction project was complete and the applicable AIEs did not provide coverage for completed operations, and/or because the policy’s faulty workmanship exclusions applied. The trial court awarded $1.4 million in compensatory and punitive damages to Pulte Home, and American Safety appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Malcom Ranger-Murdock, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Ranger-Murdock may be contacted at mrm@sdvlaw.com

---

Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
A Virginia court sent charges of construction fraud against a Kansas man to a grand jury. Larry Foster visited homes in Bedford County, Virginia, tested the water, and told homeowners that they needed new water filtration systems. The homeowners paid, but Mr. Foster never delivered. One homeowner who testified paid him $1,690. Another paid even more, giving $3,090 to Mr. Foster. In order to dupe his victims, Foster used the address of a chiropractor as a business address, unbeknownst to the actual business there.. He is wanted for charges in other states as well. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause

March 21, 2022 — Brian C. Padove - ConsensusDocs
One of the foundational tenets of contract law is that a party may only be bound by terms they agree to, or in other words, if the party did not sign a contract, that party cannot be bound by the terms thereof. While this principle is generally unwavering, there are certain situations in which a non-signatory to a contract may still be bound by the terms of a contract. In particular, this non-signatory issue may arise when a payment bond claimant makes a bond claim, subsequently files a lawsuit, but the bond contains a forum selection clause different than the venue of the lawsuit and the surety seeks to enforce the bond’s forum selection clause. For example, the claimant may have filed its lawsuit against the surety in federal court, even though the bond provides language specifically mandating that no lawsuit shall be commenced by any claimant other than in a state court where the project is located. Thus, the question then becomes, can the surety enforce the forum selection clause against the claimant when the claimant did not sign the bond and/or never agreed to the terms thereof? The short answer, it depends (yes, that is a very lawyer-like answer). Given recent case law over the past decade, however, the surety has a strong argument in favor of enforcement of the forum selection clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Padove may be contacted at bpadove@watttieder.com

---

South Carolina Supreme Court Asked Whether Attorney-Client Privilege Waived When Insurer Denies Bad Faith

September 18, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fourth Circuit certified the following question to the South Carolina Supreme Court: Does South Carolina law support application of the "at issue" exception to the attorney-client privilege such that a party may waive the privilege by denying liability in its answer? In Re: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17910 (4th Cir. June 28, 2018). Mt. Hawley insured Contravest Construction Company under an excess commercial liability policy from July 21, 2003 to July 21, 2007. During this period, Contravest constructed a development in South Carolina. In 2011, the Owners Association sued Contravest for alleged defective construction. Mt. Hawley denied tenders to defend or indemnify. Contravest ultimately settled the case. 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

---

Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

February 27, 2019 — The Associated Press - Bloomberg
St. Petersburg, Russia (AP) -- Part of the roof and several floors of university building in Russia's second-largest city collapsed Saturday, but officials say there were no casualties. The Emergencies Ministry said the collapse at the Saint Petersburg National Research University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics took place as construction work was underway. An investigation into criminal violation of construction safety has been opened. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Associated Press, Bloomberg

---

Jinx: Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Teamsters in Withdrawal Case

July 28, 2018 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
Bad omen. Last week, I wrote about a Appeals Court decision that affirmed a contractor’s escape from an over $600,000 withdrawal liability assessment from the Laborers Union. The next day the Third Circuit (which covers PA, NJ, and DE) handed down a decision affirming a federal court’s decision to assess withdraw liability. This one shows the dark side of not reading and understanding your CBA. The belligerents in the litigation were, Penn Jersey, a construction material supplier, and Teamsters Local 676. Their collective bargaining agreement contained a clause purportedly covering withdrawal liability. Specifically, the clause stated “should the Employer withdraw from the Agreement in the future, there will be no withdrawal liability. The CBA expired and Penn Jersey did not renew its agreement with the Teamsters. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

March 06, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which establishes a presumption that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety. In other words, if a general contractor hires a subcontractor, the subcontractor is solely responsible for the safety of its workers. There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception, holds that a hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. The second, the Kinsman exception, holds that a hirer may be liable for injuries sustained by a worker of an independent contractor if the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered and the hirer failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

April 03, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
Unable to discern the meaning of a provision stating that payment of damages would be made "through a trial but not any appeal", the court found an ambiguity.Parker v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9085 (D. Ore. Jan. 23, 2013). The homeowners sued the general contractor for defective construction of their home. In November 2008, the homeowners reached a settlement through mediation with the general contractor. The general contractor's claims under its policies with American Family and Mid-Continent were assigned to the homeowners. The homeowners then sued both insurers for breach of insurance contract and/or equitable contribution. American Family moved for summary judgment, claiming the homeowners did not prove their damages claim against the general contractor "through a trial but not any appeal." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---