Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

April 15, 2015 — Robert Ansehl – White and Williams LLP
Regulators and government agencies are sharpening their focus on the issues surrounding cyber risk. The number of pronouncements are too numerous to recite in a single client alert but the overarching message is clear – be prepared or be subject to attack. Attacks not only will come from hackers, customers, consumers and, ultimately the plaintiffs’ bar, but the regulators themselves. Vulnerability lies not only with cyber attacked companies but increasingly with the companies’ officers and directors who fail to adequately safeguard data. On March 26, 2015, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced that it would be expanding its information technology examination procedures to focus on cyber risk. This effort was a follow-up to its February 8, 2015 announcement of new cyber assessments (See "Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance," March 24, 2015). Not to be outdone, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) proposed a comprehensive and mandatory filing for property casualty insurers that would give regulators a full range of information and data on cyber risk exposures issued by carriers in the insurance market. This proposal comes on the heels of President Obama’s proposal, just two months ago, to create the Cyber Threat Intelligent Integration Center (CTIIC), a new federal agency designed to fight cyber attacks, provide collaboration and encourage information sharing between the Federal government and private industry. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ansehl may be contacted at ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com

Reaffirming the Importance of Appeal Deadlines Under the Contract Disputes Act

January 26, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) decision emphasizes the importance of deadlines for appealing a contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”). On July 22, 2016, the COFC granted the consolidation of two naval contract dispute appeals totaling nearly $12.4 million in response to Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba’s (“NTS”) motion to resolve two Requests for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) in the same forum. See Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. United States, No. 15-885C, 2016 WL 4009886, at *5 (Fed. Cl. July 22, 2016). NTS’s motion before the COFC sought to transfer an appeal of a REA before the COFC to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), where another appeal of a REA arising under the same contract was presently on appeal. The COFC rejected NTS’s appeal to transfer the REA to the ASBCA because NTS did not appeal the REA within the 90-day limit under the CDA. Instead, the COFC allowed NTS to transfer the REA before the ASBCA to the COFC because timeliness was not an issue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

September 16, 2024 — Joseph Barra - Robinson+Cole
“The Massachusetts Legislature passed the state’s Prompt Pay Act 14 years ago to improve the downstream flow of money on most large-scale private construction projects. While the act established detailed protocols for administering applications for payment and other important construction phase processes, several questions about its interpretation and impact remained unanswered. Over the years, I watched as a significant portion of the Massachusetts design and construction community either ignored the law’s exacting requirements or were unaware of their applicability. The first indication of how the act would be interpreted came in 2022, when the state appeals court decided Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners LLC. In that case, the court strictly construed the act. It held that an owner (and its agent) who failed to promptly advise the project’s general contractor of specific factual and legal reasons why it was withholding payment, coupled with a failure to certify that funds were being withheld in good faith, violated the law—making the contractor liable for the unpaid funds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Barra, Robinson+Cole
Mr. Barra may be contacted at jbarra@rc.com

Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

February 16, 2017 — Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages. In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages. Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

August 17, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries & Andrea DeField - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On June 29, in a development that may fundamentally change the landscape for California businesses which have sustained COVID-19 related business interruption loss, two California legislators amended pending legislation to address several of the most hotly contested issues regarding insurance recovery for these devastating losses. The bill, Assembly Bill 1552, focuses on All-Risk property insurance policies. As amended, it would create a “rebuttable presumption” that COVID-19 was present on and caused physical damage to property which was the direct cause of business interruption. A similar rebuttable presumption would apply to orders of civil authority coverage and to ingress/egress coverage. The bill would further prohibit COVID-19 from being construed as a pollutant or contaminant for purposes of any policy exclusion unless the exclusion specifically referred to viruses. The bill would apply to any All-Risk policy in effect on or after March 4, 2020 and is written to satisfy the standards for an “urgency” statute, taking effect immediately upon being signed into law. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

December 09, 2019 — Anthony Hatzilabrou - Traub Lieberman
Recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that structural damages to the foundation of an insured’s home came within the earth movement exclusion in a homeowner’s policy, notwithstanding a provision in the policy which provided coverage for water damage resulting “from accidental discharge or overflow of water … from within … [p]lumbing, heating, air condition or household appliance.” In Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 264 So. 3d 737 (Miss. 2019), the appellee, Smith, filed a lawsuit against her homeowner's insurance company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”) for its refusal to pay for repairs to the foundation of Smith’s home. Smith alleged that the refusal to pay for repairs amounted to breach of contract and asserted claims for bad faith and tortious breach of contract. In response, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the policy’s earth-movement exclusion, which provided that Farm Bureau “did not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by…Earth Movement…[which] means…[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting... caused by or resulting from human or animal forces.” Smith filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that the earth-movement exclusion did not preclude coverage because her insurance policy also contained a clause expressly covering water damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Hatzilabrou, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Hatzilabrou may be contacted at thatzilabrou@tlsslaw.com

Pandemic-Related Construction Materials Pricing Poses Challenges in Construction Lawsuits

September 20, 2021 — Nick Stewart - Construction Executive
During the global pandemic the construction industry saw unprecedented inflation in the cost of building supplies as a result of a myriad of issues. On May 7, 2021, lumber prices hit a record high at $1,670.50 per thousand board feet. This was more than six times their pandemic low in April 2020. This significant price spike was related to closure of sawmills during the height of the pandemic, low supply, soaring demand to expand existing homes or purchase new construction, the western U.S. wildfires and tariffs. More recently, lumber prices have fallen but they are still up nearly 100% from spring 2020. Some experts believe that the recent wildfires in the western United States and upcoming hurricane season will cause prices to jump back up in the upcoming months. Additionally, since March 2020, steel prices are up roughly 200%. The increase in steel prices is a result of many of the same factors causing lumber pricing spikes. Many steel mills shut down production or drastically reduced production during the early days of the pandemic expecting a deep recession and/or to comply with restrictive government mandates. Despite these industry expectations, demand for steel -elated products like grills and home appliances soared. These household demands for steel-based products impacted the price of steel for construction projects. Prior to the pandemic, hot-rolled steel traded between $500 and 800 per ton but hit an all-time high of $1,825 per ton in early July 2021. Reprinted courtesy of Nick Stewart, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Stewart may be contacted at nstewart@turnerpadget.com

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

December 11, 2018 — Timothy Carroll - White and Williams LLP
Earlier this month, in Frederick Mutual Insurance Company v. Hall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that coverage for faulty workmanship claims is “simply not the kind of coverage insurance agents and insurance companies expect to provide” to construction industry professionals “unless the insured explicitly requests such coverage.” 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666, at *9 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018). In Hall, a stone masonry contractor was sued by its customer for causing over $350,000 in property damage resulting from “substandard and defective work” performed on the customer’s residence. The insurer sought a declaration that it owed neither a defense nor indemnity for those damages because, under Pennsylvania law, the policy did not cover property damage caused by faulty workmanship. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES