Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

July 30, 2019 — Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act

March 13, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller Act payment bond decision out of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. f/u/b/o Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, 58 F.4th 1250 (D.C. Circ. 2023), dealt with the issue of whether a subcontractor’s superintendent constitutes recoverable “labor” within the meaning of the Miller Act and compensable as a cost under the Miller Act that typically views labor as on-site physical labor. The issue is that the Miller Act covers “[e]very person that has furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a contract.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253 quoting 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(1). The Miller Act does not define labor. The subcontractor claimed labor includes actual superintending at the job site. The surety disagreed that a superintendent’s presence on a job site constitutes labor as the superintendent has to actually perform physical labor on the job site to constitute compensable labor under the Miller Act. The subcontractor argued its subcontract and the government’s quality control standards required detailed daily reports that verified manpower, equipment, and work performed at the job site. It further claimed its superintendent had to continuously supervise and inspect construction activities on-site: “[the] superintendent had to be on-site to account for, among other things, hours worked by crew members, usage and standby hours for each piece of equipment, materials delivered, weather throughout the day, and all work performed. These on-site responsibilities reflected the government’s quality control standards, under which the superintendent as ‘the most senior site manager at the project, is responsible for the overall construction activities at the site…includ[ing] all quality, workmanship, and production of crews and equipment.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253-54. 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

Fifth Circuit Certifies Questions to Texas Supreme Court on Concurrent Causation Doctrine

August 07, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit certified unanswered questions on the concurrent causation doctrine to the Texas Supreme Court. Overstreet v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop, Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13582 (5th Cir. May 19, 2022). The insured alleged that a hail storm damaged his roof. The roof was three years old when he purchased a policy from Allstate. An adjuster sent by Allstate valued the loss at $1,263.123, less than the policy deductible. Allstate contended that the roof damage was due to uncovered causes, namely a combination of wear and tear and earlier hail storms that hit the roof before the insured purchased the policy. The insured disagreed because the roof had never leaked before the hail storm, but only after the storm. The insured's expert inspected the roof and determined it had been damaged by hail. The district granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment because the insured had not carried his burden of proving how much damages came from the hail storm alone. 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

Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

January 21, 2015 — Hui-yong Yu – Bloomberg
Blackstone Group LP (BX), the biggest owner of U.S. single-family houses, agreed to buy 36 apartment properties across the country for about $1.7 billion as it expands its rental business, according to two people with knowledge of the transaction. The low-rise, garden-style properties are being sold by Praedium Group, a New York-based real estate investment firm, and contain about 11,000 apartments, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the deal is private. About half of the buildings are in California, Washington, D.C., and Boston, with the rest located around the U.S., they said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hui-yong Yu, Bloomberg
Hui-yong Yu may be contacted at hyu@bloomberg.net

The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

August 17, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

October 27, 2016 — Chadd Reynolds and David Cook – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
A few months ago, a decision by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Georgia Department of Labor v. RTT Associates, Inc. provided a strict rule for contractors that work with state agencies to determine whether a state agency has waived its sovereign immunity. The issue as framed by the Court was “whether an agency’s waiver of immunity from a breach of contract claim as a result of entering into a written contract remains intact in the event the contract is extended without a written document signed by both parties expressly amending the contract, as required by its terms.” Reprinted courtesy of David Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP and Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?

February 07, 2014 — Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
All condominium associations and homeowners associations (“HOAs”) created in Maryland 0n or after October 1, 2010 are subject to new laws pertaining to statutory warranties for construction defects in workmanship and materials. Most associations that have recently transitioned, or that are about to transition, from developer to homeowner control were created on after October 1, 2010. It is now time for these Associations to become familiar with the new laws to ensure they protect and preserve their warranty rights. Below is an Article I wrote regarding these new laws, which I helped create. See Blog Post: “Maryland Construction Defect Lawyers Enforcing Warranty Claims for Condominiums.” Too often our firm is contacted by condominium associations who never knew what there warranty and other legal rights were until it was too late to seek developer repairs and reimbursement for construction defects. There is no reason for community associations to remain uniformed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

January 13, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The pre-publication version of the final rule to be promulgated by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to repeal the 2015 redefinition of the Clean Water Act’s term “Waters of the United States” which is the linchpin of these agencies’ regulatory power under the CWA, was made available on September 12, 2019. The rule should be published in the Federal Register in the next few weeks, and it will be effective 60 days thereafter. Many challenges are expected to be filed in the federal courts. The 2015 rule was very controversial, and petitions challenging the rule were filed in many federal district courts, several courts of appeal, and finally in the Supreme Court (see NAM v. Department of Defense), which held that all initial challenges must be filed in the federal district courts. The upshot of these challenges is that, at this time, the 2015 rule has been enjoined in more than half the states while the other states are bound by the 2015 rule, a situation which is frustrating for everyone. In addition to repealing the 2015 rule, the agencies also restored the pre-2015 definition had had been in place since 1986. As a result, the pre-2015 definition of waters of the U.S. will again govern the application of the following rules: (a) the ACOE’s definition of “waters of the U.S.” at 33 CFR Section 328.3; (b) EPA’s general Oil Discharge rule at 40 CFR Section 110; (c) the SPCC rules at 40 CFR Part 112; (d) EPA’s designation of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 116; (e) EPA’s hazardous substance reportable quantity rule at 40 CFR Part 117; (f) the NPDES permitting rules at 40 CFR Part 122; (g) the guidelines for dredged or fill disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 230; (g) Exempt activities not requiring a CWA 404 permit (guidelines for 404 disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 232); (h) the National Contingency Plan rules at 40 CFR Part 300; (i) the designation of reportable quantities of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302; and (j) EPA’s Effluent Guidelines standards at 40 CFR Part 401. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES