Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates Awarded Silver Star Award at WCC Construction Defect Seminar

May 24, 2018 — CDJ STAFF
The staff of the Construction Defect Journal would like to extend their congratulations to Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., in recognition of his receipt of the Silver Star Award as “Best Expert” at the 25th Anniversary of the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar, hosted at the Disneyland Resort Hotel, in Anaheim CA. Recipients of the Silver Star Awards were nominated and voted on by their peers, colleagues, and the Construction Defect Community at large, as represented by the 25,000 members who received emails on the subject. Along with “Best Expert,” recognition was also given to the best judge, mediator, plaintiff attorney, developer attorney, subcontractor attorney, coverage counsel, and insurance claims professional. Awards were handed out last Thursday during a special ceremony at this year’s Seminar. To Don, and all the worthy awardees, congratulations again! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

June 13, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a recent case, the appellate court held that the attorney’s fees provision in the contract was NOT broad enough to entitle the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. This is known as “fees on fees” which is when you can recover your prevailing party attorney’s fees when you are fighting over the quantum that should be awarded to you as the prevailing party. The attorney’s fees provision at-issue stated: “In any lawsuit to enforce the Lease or under applicable law, the party in whose favor a judgment or decree has been rendered may recover its reasonable court costs including attorney’s fees from the non-prevailing party.” Language similar to this language can be found in many contracts as a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision. However, this provision was NOT broad enough to recover “fees on fees.” As explained in this article, if this is a consideration, you can negotiate or include this provision into your construction contract by expanding the scope of the prevailing party attorney’s fees provision to clarify that it entitles the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. 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

Hunton Andrews Kurth Promotes Insurance Recovery Lawyer Andrea (Andi) DeField to Partner

April 05, 2021 — Lorelie S. Masters - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Effective April 1, 2021, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP has promoted insurance recovery lawyer, Andi DeField, and six other attorneys, to partner. “Andi has been a superstar in our practice since the day she arrived,” said insurance recovery practice head, Walter Andrews, adding that “Andi’s promotion reflects the incredible hard work she has contributed to the practice and outstanding results she has achieved for our clients over the years.” A native of Miami, Andi ascended through the ranks at Hunton in its Miami office, joining the firm as a contract lawyer before earning promotions to associate, counsel and, now, partner. But Andi’s rapid ascension did not come without much hard work. Since joining the firm, “Andi has, year after year, consistently knocked the cover off the ball in terms of her tireless work ethic, the superior results she has achieved and her extraordinary aptitude for marketing herself, our practice and the firms many other practices,” said insurance recovery partner, Mike Levine. Levine added, “Andi is an amazing lawyer and a true champion for her clients. I’m proud to now call her my partner.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com

Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun

April 04, 2022 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burby, 2022 NY Slip Op 22070, ¶ 1 (Sup. Ct.) Justice Richard M. Platkin of the Supreme Court of Albany County, New York examined a homeowners insurance policy and determined that a duty to defend was triggered in a case seeking recovery for injuries sustained when the insured, Burby allegedly discharged a nail gun in the bathroom of a work facility at which both Burby and the underlying plaintiff worked. Burby pled guilty to assault in the third degree for recklessly causing physical injury. MetLife, Burby’s carrier, disclaimed coverage based on lack of an occurrence, the business activities exclusion and the intentional loss exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured or injuries that are the result of the insured’s intentional and criminal acts or omissions. Justice Platkin initially reviewed the intentional loss exclusion and lack of an occurrence and found that, from a duty to defend perspective, neither provided a dispositive coverage defense. However, the court found that the broadly worded business activities exclusion, which was not the subject of MetLife’s motion and instead was the subject of a cross motion by Burby, applied to bar coverage. In doing so, the court searched the record and granted summary judgment on the issue, despite MetLife not moving for relief under the exclusion. With respect to the expected or intended prong of the intentional loss exclusion, the court found that, even if Burby did intend to pull the trigger of the nail gun, it was not pled in the underlying complaint that the harm that resulted to the plaintiff was expected or intended. As such, the court concluded that MetLife did not prove that there was no possible factual or legal basis upon which it could be found that Burby did not reasonably expect or intend to cause injury to the plaintiff. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

Avoid Delay or Get Ready to Pay: The Risks of “Time-Is-of-The-Essence” Clauses

August 29, 2018 — Stephen Orlando - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Like death and taxes, construction delays are inevitable. Even the most cautious, diligent contractor may face subcontractor disputes, supply shortages, or inclement weather which slows down a project. Even if the contractor avoids unexpected problems, the sheer complexity of a job may cause a contractor to exceed the deadlines proposed in a contract. Fortunately, courts recognize the practical reality of construction projects and the unavoidable delays which may arise. Therefore, as a general rule, a contractor is only liable for delayed completion of a project if the delay resulted from the contractor’s unreasonable performance of his or her work. Reasonable performance will typically serve as a defense to a claim of delayed completion. This defense is a vital asset when a contractor surpasses the project’s expected timeframe. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen Orlando, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani

Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries

July 30, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (No. B252566, filed June 18, 2015), the Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of a brake grinding machine. The Court cited an exception to the general rule that manufacturers may not be held liable, under a strict products liability theory, where the plaintiff’s injuries arise from other products that are used in conjunction with the defendant’s product. Plaintiff and appellant, Michael Sherman, was an automobile mechanic from 1962 to 1977. Mr. Sherman alleged that during this period he used an arcing machine, which abraded brake linings by means of sand paper moving at high speeds. Sherman alleged the machine released asbestos dust, which he then brought home, exposing his wife Debra Sherman to asbestos. Ms. Sherman developed mesothelioma and passed away from exposure to the asbestos dust carried home by her husband. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

May 12, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed that the insurer had no coverage obligations for bodily injury occurring after the policy had been canceled. Hoesen v. Lloyd's of London, 2016 R.I. LEXIS 41 (R.I. March 24, 2016). The plaintiff, Mark Van Hoesen, was seriously injured on July 23, 2012, when he fell from a deck of his house. He sued his contractor, Brian Leonard, alleging that the deck had been negligently constructed. Lloyd's, Leonard's insurer, was later named as a defendant. Lloyd's admitted it issued the policy to Leonard, but it was cancelled on August 29, 2007. Even if it had not been canceled, the policy had expired long before the injuries alleged in plaintiff's complaint occurred. 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

New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation

November 23, 2020 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of DeLuca v. RLI Insurance Company, 2020 WL 5931054 (October 7, 2020), the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department held that RLI had a duty to pay a judgment obtained by an underlying plaintiff against RLI’s insured, MLSC. The underlying plaintiff brought the action directly against the carrier after obtaining a judgment against MLSC, and when the judgment remained unsatisfied, serving RLI with the judgment. As an initial matter, the court found that the direct action by the plaintiff was proper under New York Insurance Law 3420(a), which allows for an injured plaintiff to maintain a direct action against a carrier if a judgment against that carrier’s insured remains unsatisfied for a period of 30 days and the carrier is served with that judgment. In that event, the plaintiff steps into the shoes of the insured and is entitled to the rights of the insured (and is also subject to the carrier’s coverage defenses). Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES