Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Flood Sublimits Do Not Apply to Loss Caused by Named Windstorm

May 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Jersey Superior Court considered whether recovery for storm surge was limited by the policy's sublimit for loss caused by flood. Public Serv. Enter. Group, Inc. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2015 N. J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 620 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. March 23, 2015). Storm surge from Superstorm Sandy inundated and damaged Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.'s (PSEG) property, including eight large generating stations. PSEG had coverage of $1 billion under policies with defendant carriers. There was no sublimit in the policies for "named windstorms," other than named windstorms in Florida. A $250 million sublimit appeared in the policies for losses caused by "flood." The carriers paid only a portion of PSEG's claim. The total damages exceeded $500 million. 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

To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act

March 29, 2017 — Richard W. Brown & Afua Akoto – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Faced with the issue of whether maritime or state law should be applied to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract (MSC), the Fifth Circuit affirmed that where there is no historical treatment of the contract in question (1), it would consider six factors established in Davis (2). In Doiron, the Apache Corporation and STS (3) entered a broad-form blanket MSC, under which STS agreed to perform flow-back services, a process designed to dislodge solid objects from inside a well, on Apache’s well located off shore of Louisiana. The MSC also contained an indemnification provision, which required STS to defend and indemnify Apache and its company groups against all claims of property injury or bodily injury. During the flow-back operation, Larry Doiron Inc. (LDI), one of the Apache Company groups, supplied a crane barge for use by STS employees. Subsequently, the crane knocked over an STS employee, causing him to suffer severe injuries. LDI then made a formal demand to STS for defense and indemnification. STS rejected the demand and argued that the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act applied to the MSC instead of maritime law. Pursuant to the Act, indemnity clauses in agreements pertaining to wells for oil, gas or water are void as against public policy. But, under maritime law, the enforcement of such provisions is not barred. Therefore, if the MSC was construed under the Act, STS had no duty to defend or indemnify LDI. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer Not Responsible for Insured's Assignment of Policy Benefits

February 21, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's granting summary judgment to the insurer after failing to abide by an assignment to which it was not a party. Expert Inspections, LLC v. United Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 88 (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2022). The insured's property sustained damage from Hurricane Irma resulting in a covered loss. The insured retained Expert Inspections to perform mold-related services. As payment, the insured assigned her policy benefits pursuant to an assignment of benefits agreement. Under the agreement, the insured agreed to cooperate with the assignee to ensure that payments were made by the insurer upon completion of work. The insured gave authority to the assignee to endorse any checks with her name listed on the check. 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

Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement

January 13, 2020 — Danielle Ward, Esq. - Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
In July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract. The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret. The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech. The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.” The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding. In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement. Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit. The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms. Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Options When there is a Construction Lien on Your Property

June 02, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
There is a construction lien on my property. What are my best options? I hear this question quite a bit…so here it goes… (1) Do nothing. That’s right – do nothing. If you are not looking to sell your house or refinance in the next year or so, you can do nothing and see whether the lienor files a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit. The lienor has one year from the recording of the lien to file the lawsuit. (2) Record a Notice of Contest of Lien. The Notice of Contest of Lien shortens the lienor’s statue of limitations to foreclose on the lien from one year to 60 days. If the lienor fails to foreclose on the lien within 60 days, the lien is extinguished by operation of law. This is the route I tend to prefer. If the lienor is going to file a lien foreclosure lawsuit, I tend to think it is better forcing the issue on the front end as opposed to waiting a year. But every situation is different. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Thanks to All for the 2024 Super Lawyers Nod!

May 13, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the seventh straight year to the Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2024. Add this to my recent election to the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists. So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the 5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2024. The full list of Virginia Super Lawyers will appear in the May edition of Richmond Magazine. Please check it out. If you want to see the lists before then, a digital version of the Virginia Super Lawyers Magazine is available here (click on the Virginia magazine). Thanks again to all of you who participated in my nomination and election. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

October 18, 2021 — Steven A. Neeley - Construction Executive
In today’s world, there is a tendency to believe that everything must be preserved forever. The common belief is that documents, emails, text messages, etc. cannot be deleted because doing so may be viewed as spoliation (i.e., intentionally destroying relevant evidence). A party guilty of spoliation can be sanctioned, which can include an adverse inference that the lost information would have helped the other side. But that does not mean that contractors have to preserve every conceivable piece of information or data under all circumstances. There are key differences between routine document destruction (when done before receiving notice of potential claims or litigation) and spoliation. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision in Appeal of Sungjee Constr. Co., Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 62002 and 62170 (Mar. 23, 2021) provides a good reminder. There, Sungjee challenged its default termination under a construction contract at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Sungjee argued that the government denied it access to the site for 352 days (out of a 450-day performance period) by refusing to issue passes that were needed to access the base. The government argued that it had issued the passes, but it could not produce them to Sungjee in discovery because they had been destroyed as part of a routine document destruction policy. The base security force issued hard copy passes and entered the information in a biometric system. The government was able to produce the biometric system data but not the hard copy passes because they were destroyed each year. Sungjee argued the government was guilty of spoliation and moved for sanctions. It asked the Board to draw an adverse inference that the passes would have shown that the government had not issued proper passes on a timely basis, which delayed Sungjee’s performance. The Board denied Sungjee’s motion for several reasons. Reprinted courtesy of Steven A. Neeley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Neeley may be contacted at steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com

Scotiabank Is Cautious on Canada Housing as RBC, BMO Seek Action

April 12, 2021 — Shelly Hagan & Erik Hertzberg - Bloomberg
Bank of Nova Scotia, Canada’s third-largest lender, waded into the burgeoning debate over whether Justin Trudeau’s government should take immediate steps to cool the nation’s hot housing market, issuing a report that cautioned against rushing to implement new constraints. In a report released Sunday, Scotiabank’s chief economist Jean-Francois Perrault said the recent run-up in home prices nationally over the past year was in large part driven by sluggish supply that failed to keep up with higher demand -- a trend that could reverse itself as new sellers enter the market in coming weeks. If the government does decide to take action, it should target housing speculators, he said. Reprinted courtesy of Shelly Hagan, Bloomberg and Erik Hertzberg, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES