SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

$17B Agreement Streamlines Disney World Development Plans

July 22, 2024 — Derek Lacey - Engineering News-Record
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts received the green light on $17 billion in development plans in and around Walt Disney World in Orange County, Fla,, garnering approval June 12 from the board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD) for its sprawling capital plan. Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses

May 18, 2020 — Richard W. Brown & Andres Avila - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The draft legislation, entitled the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020 (“PRIA”), would establish a Federal Pandemic Risk Reinsurance Fund and Program (the “Program”), that is intended to provide a system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption (“BI”) losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease. PRIA, in its current draft form, is modeled after and in many ways mirrors the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act that was enacted to address catastrophic losses resulting from acts of terrorism. PRIA effectively mandates that participating insurers provide coverage for any business interruption loss resulting from an outbreak of infectious disease or pandemic that is declared an emergency or major disaster by the President and certified by the Secretary of Treasury (the “Secretary”) as a public health emergency. PRIA would be triggered in the case of certified public health emergencies upon the aggregate industry insured losses exceed $250 million dollars, and include an annual aggregate limit capped at $500 billion dollars. The draft bill provides that the Secretary would administer the Program and pay the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, which would be 95% of losses in excess of an applicable insurer annual deductible, once the Program is triggered. The compensation would benefit those insurers that elect to participate in the Program in exchange for a premium paid by the participating insurer for reinsurance coverage under the Program. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

House Committee Kills Colorado's 2015 Attainable Housing Bill

May 07, 2015 — Derek Lindenschmidt – Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Senate Bill 177, the Colorado housing community’s effort to reinvigorate the construction of attainable multi-family housing and quell construction defect lawsuits, was killed by the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on Monday evening on a party-line vote. Although the bill received significant bipartisan support in the Senate, a broad coalition of municipalities, builders, contractors, and non-profit organizations was unable to convince a pre-determined “kill” committee of the merits and benefits of the bill. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lindenschmidt, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Lindenschmidt may be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

---

California Expands on Scope of Coverage for Soft Cost Claims

February 14, 2023 — Caitlin N. Rabiyan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The California federal district court case of KB Home v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., No. 8:20-cv-00278-JLS-JDE, (C.D. Cal. August 23, 2022), provides much needed guidance for cases involving builder's risk insurance claims for soft cost coverage. The case stems from damage to several of KB Home’s residential building sites caused by a severe rainstorm in January 2017. Each home site was a smaller part of a large housing development project. The damage caused significant delay in the completion of some individual home sites, although there was limited evidence of delay to the overall housing development project. As a result, KB Home sought coverage under a builder’s risk policy purchased from Illinois Union for both hard costs and soft costs. “Hard costs” are the costs directly associated with repairing property damage to the sites. Conversely, “soft costs” are indirect expenses associated with project delays caused by such property damage and repair efforts. For example, hard costs would include labor and materials, whereas the soft costs claimed by KB Home included additional real estate taxes, construction loan interest, and advertising and promotional expenses incurred because of the delays. Illinois Union paid the claim for the hard costs, but denied the soft costs claim. KB Home filed suit and Illinois Union eventually filed a motion for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Caitlin N. Rabiyan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rabiyan may be contacted at CRabiyan@sdvlaw.com

---

Congratulations to Karen Baytosh and August Hotchkin on Their Recognition as 2021 Nevada Legal Elites!

June 07, 2021 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Reno Partners Karen Baytosh and August Hotchkin have been recognized in the Nevada Business Magazine as Nevada Legal Elites, Northern Nevada Top Attorneys. To view the Silver State’s Top Attorneys, please click here. The Nevada Legal Elite list includes the top 4 percent of attorneys in the state and is broken down by location. Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Builders Magazine writes that during the previous session of the Nevada legislature, reforms sought by the building industry were stopped by the Speaker of the Nevada Assembly. The new session brings a new speaker and new hope for construction defect reform in Nevada.



Pat Hickey, a member of the Assembly and a small business owner told The Builders Magazine that “we need to apply pressure on the legislators to fix the law.” He also recommended that people “go to Governor Sandoval and ask for his help.” Builders seeks legislation that will include right to repair and it should “define construction defect in such a way that it allows for a fair process.”

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

White and Williams Obtains Reversal on Appeal of $2.5 Million Verdict Against Electric Utility Company

September 03, 2014 — Edward Koch, Mark Paladino, Luke Repici, & Andrew Susko – White and Williams LLP
PPL Electric Utilities successfully argued on appeal that the $2.5 million plaintiff’s molded verdict awarded to an injured painting subcontractor should be vacated because the alleged evidence was legally insufficient and therefore the utility was not liable. In Nertavich v. PPL Electric Utilities, the plaintiff argued that although the utility was a landowner out of possession of the worksite, the utility was liable because it controlled the work of the subcontractor both by contract and by conduct. PPL argued on appeal before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania that the alleged evidence of the utility company’s control was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute control over the means and methods of the subcontractor’s work, and thus, PPL was not liable as a landowner out of possession. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Edward Koch, Mark Paladino, Luke Repici and Andrew Susko Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Paladino may be contacted at paladinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Repici may be contacted at repicil@whiteandwilliams.com; and Mr. Susko may be contacted at suskoa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

July 30, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. 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

---