Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

April 06, 2020 — Yvette Davis & Kyle R. DiNicola - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was signed by the President on March 18, 2020 and will become effective no later than April 2, 2020. The law contains numerous updates to the country’s employment regulations in response to the Coronavirus pandemic of which employers should be familiar. Of particular note, the FFCRA makes limited amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act. Now, pursuant to the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”) employees may take up to 12 weeks of family and medical leave after having worked with the employer for 30 calendar days if the employee is unable to work (or telework) due to the employee’s need to care for a son or daughter under 18 years of age due to the child’s school closure or unavailability of a childcare provider due to a public health emergency, i.e., COVID-19. Unlike the FMLA, which does not apply to many small employers, this requirement applies to any employers with 500 or fewer employees. No mileage radius requirement exists under the EFMLEA. When an employee utilizes leave pursuant to EFMLEA, the first 10 days of that leave may consist of unpaid leave, but the employee may elect to substitute any accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave, including the Emergency Paid Sick Leave provided for by the Act and described below). All subsequent days of leave taken by the employee after the tenth day must be paid by the employer at a rate of not less than two thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay and the number of hours the employee would otherwise normally be scheduled to work. The cap is $200 per day or $10,000 in the aggregate. Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Eleventh Circuit’s Noteworthy Discussion on Bad Faith Insurance Claims

November 01, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in Pelaez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 2021 WL 4258821 (11th Cir. 2021) is a non-construction case that discusses the standard for pursuing a bad faith claim against an insurer. This case dealt with an automobile accident. While the facts of the case are interesting and will be discussed, the takeaway is the Eleventh Circuit’s noteworthy discussion on the standard for bad faith claims and how they should be evaluated. This discussion is included below–with citations–because while the term “bad faith” is oftentimes thrown around when it comes to insurance carriers, there is indeed an evaluative standard that is applied to determine whether an insurance carrier acted in bad faith. In Pelaez, a high school student driving a car crashed with a motorcycle. The motorcycle driver was seriously injured and airlifted to the hospital. The accident was reported to the automobile liability insurer of the driver of the car. The insurer through its investigation initially believed the motorcycle driver was contributory negligent. Eleven days after the crash, after learning additional information, the insurer tendered its bodily injury policy limits of $50,00 to the motorcycle driver even though it never received a settlement demand. The insurer sent a tender package to the motorcycle driver’s lawyer that included a $50,000 check for the bodily injury claim and a proposed release. The accompanying letter told the attorney to contact the insurer with any questions about the release and to edit the proposed release with suggested changes. The insurer also wanted to inspect the motorcycle in furtherance of adjusting the property damage claim which also had a policy limit of $50,000. A location of where the motorcycle could be inspected was never provided. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

March 22, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut has issued several decisions of late finding coverage for collapse despite the building not being reduced to rubble. The latest decision in this series is Metsack v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24062 (D. Conn. Feb. 21, 2017). The Metsack's property was insured by Allstate under policies issued from June 27, 1991 to September 9, 2009. From September 2009 to present, Liberty Mutual issued property policies to the insureds. Mr. Metsack built the insureds' home in 1992. The concrete basement walls used concrete supplied by JJ Mottes Company. 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

No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

June 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's holding that the insurer had no duty to defend claims arising out of the insureds' installation of defective steel framing in an apartment building. Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. B245961(Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2014) [decision here]. Regional Steel was a subcontractor for providing reinforced steel to the columns, walls, and floors of an apartment building under construction. Regional used 90 degree and 135 degree seismic hooks as approved by the general contractor, JSM Construction, Inc. The City building inspector issued a correction notice, however, requiring the exclusive use of the 135 degree hooks. Levels one through three had defective tie hooks and required repair. JSM refused to pay Regional's invoices and withheld $545,000. JSM had to make repairs that required opening up numerous locations in the concrete walls, welding reinforcements to the steel placed by Regional, and otherwise strengthening the inadequate installation. Regional sued JSM for the withheld payment. JSM cross-claimed, asserting breach of contract and breach of express and implied warranties. 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

John Paulson’s $1 Billion Caribbean Empire Faces Betrayal

November 27, 2023 — Jim Wyss & Tom Maloney - Bloomberg
In the decade since hedge fund billionaire John Paulson took a grand gamble on Puerto Rico, he’s faced the wrath of the markets and mother nature. He’s navigated hurricanes, earthquakes, the pandemic and the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history to amass a portfolio of luxury hotels and resorts, high-end office blocks, and auto dealerships catering to the island’s rich. Now, just a few months after breaking ground on one of San Juan’s tallest and most exclusive residential towers, Paulson is facing a new wave of threats: lawsuits that strike at the heart of his Caribbean empire. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Wyss, Bloomberg and Tom Maloney, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Erector Tops Out 850-Foot-Tall Rainier Square Tower in Only 10 Months

September 23, 2019 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
As predicted, the Erection Co. topped out Seattle’s 850-ft-tall Rainier Square Tower, with its radical composite steel frame dubbed “speed core,” in only 10 months. Steel erection began last October in the lowest basement. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Deadly Fire in Older Hawaii High-Rise Causes Sprinkler Law Discussion

July 19, 2017 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Last Friday, at least three people died and twelve were injured during a fire at a Honolulu high-rise that did not have sprinklers, according to CBS News. The fire began on the 26th floor and spread to at least the 28th floor and several units, the Honolulu Fire Department spokesman, Captain David Jenkins, stated. “Without a doubt if there were sprinklers in this apartment, the fire would be contained to the unit of origin,” Captain Jenkins concluded, as reported by CBS News. The Marco Polo development “was built four years before Honolulu required fire sprinkler systems in new residential high-rises,” the LA Times reported. “In 2005, the Honolulu City Council created a task force to estimate the cost of retrofitting and installing fire sprinkler systems in about 300 residential condominium buildings. A report estimated that retrofitting the Marco Polo would cost $4,305.55 for each unit.” A separate report estimated the cost would be $4.5 million to retrofit the entire building. According to Samuel Dannway, chief fire protection engineer for Coffman Engineers in Honoloulu, stated that the owners “lobbied strongly against any retrofitting” due to cost. Retrofitting sprinklers is more challenging in residential high-rises than office buildings, Glenn Corbett, associate professor of fire science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York told the LA Times. “Wall after wall, you have to penetrate with piping, and that means moving people around in apartments,” Corbett said. “They can’t live there while workers are drilling holes in their walls.” Mayor Kirk Caldwell stated that Honolulu “needs to look at passing a new law requiring sprinklers in older high-rises.” Read the full story, CBS News... Read the full story, LA Times... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

October 01, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's determination of no coverage for construction defects based upon the policy's prior work exclusion. Yu v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5966 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2014). Plaintiff was the owner and developer of a hotel. She contracted with ATMI Design Build to act as general contractor to construct the hotel. C&A Framing Company was a subcontractor to provide rough framing for the project. In May 2003, ATMI fired C&A before it had completed all the work required by the subcontract. After May 2003, C&A never returned to the construction site. Notice of Completion for the project was recorded April 15, 2004. In September 2004, Landmark issued to C&A a CGL policy for the period September 18, 2004 to September 18, 2005. The policy was later cancelled, effective January 14, 2005. The policy contained an endorsement entitled, "Exclusion - Your Prior Work." The exclusion barred coverage for "'property damage' arising out of 'your work' prior to 9/18/04." 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES