Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Suffolk Pauses $1.5B Boston Tower Project for Safety Audit After Fire

April 22, 2024 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The team building the $1.5-billion, 51-story South Station Tower in Boston voluntarily shut down the jobsite April 9 for a safety stand down and audit after a small fire broke out, according to contractor Suffolk Construction. No one was injured. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom

July 16, 2014 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
Katie Graham is living large. Just in a small apartment. She moved into the new ParkCentral tower in Nashville, Tennessee, for its gym, rooftop deck with heated pool, and the bars and restaurants in the neighborhood below. She didn’t mind the size of the 562-square-foot (52-square-meter) studio. “I just wanted to be in a good area and wanted good amenities, so I wasn’t looking for something huge,” said Graham, 25, who relocated from her hometown in Jackson, Tennessee, two hours away. “I’m by myself and don’t need all that. The bigger the area, the more furniture you have to buy.” Young professionals are paying top-market rents to live in new upscale apartment towers sprouting in Nashville and other downtowns across the country. They’re sacrificing living space for a prime urban location and extras such as cooking classes, dog-wash stations and poolside Wi-Fi. Developers, in the biggest U.S. apartment-construction boom in almost a decade, are shrinking the size of units so they can command luxury rates without narrowing the pool of potential tenants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

February 06, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion to dismiss the insured's claim for business losses due to COVID-19 was granted in part, denied in part. SRL v Zurich Am. Ins Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210058 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2022). Excelsior owned and managed the Westin Excelsior Rome, a luxury hotel in Rome. The hotel suffered business income losses with the onset of the pandemic.While the hotel was not forced to close, its bookings decreased to virtually nothing. The Excelsior's complaint alleged that the COVID-19 virus was present in and around the hotel as multiple guests and at least six employees tested positive for COVID-19. It further alleged that the virus attached to interior property and was in the air. Excelsior was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Zurich. The court agreed there was no direct physical loss because no structure suffered damage. Among the coverages under the policy, however, was a "Cancellation of Bookings" provision. Zurich agreed there was coverage under this provision, but argued that Excelsior had already reached its annual limit for Cancellation of Bookings claims. 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

Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice

December 29, 2020 — Robert Dennison - Traub Lieberman
In American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 2020 WL 5630017 (Sept. 21, 2020), the Northern District of California of the United States District Court had occasion to consider whether allegations in an underlying complaint triggered a duty to defend and a late notice defense to coverage. The underlying actions were a suit against the City of Walnut Creek for damages from flooding allegedly caused by the City’s failure to develop and maintain its storm drains.The City settled the cases then sued its liability insurers who issued its coverage in the period 1968 to 1986 for indemnification of the amounts spent to defend and settle the cases.The published decision involved three Travelers’ policies issued to the City between 1968 and 1976, as to which Travelers sought summary judgment as to the lack of coverage in its policies. The district court first found that the definition of an “occurrence” in the policies, in one policy “an event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which causes injury to person or damage to property during the policy period” and in the other two “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results during the period this policy is in effect, in bodily injury or property damage,” fell within the rule of Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, that injury or damage during the policy period must occur in order for the policy to be triggered.The court agreed with Travelers that while there were allegations of flooding for many years, the only claims/allegations of property damage were for the period 2000 and later.Therefore the property damage coverage in the policies was never triggered. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Dennison, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Dennison may be contacted at rdennison@tlsslaw.com

Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

February 10, 2020 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action. In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses. The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Does a Broker Forfeit His or Her Commission for Technical Non-Compliance with Department of Real Estate Statutory Requirements?

September 14, 2020 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, CK Revocable Trust v. My Home Group Real Estate LLC, 2020 WL 4306183 (7/28/2020), the Court of Appeals addressed the distinction between “substantive” and “technical” statutory requirements for real estate broker commission agreements. The Court explained that failure to comply with a substantive requirement would preclude the broker from recovering a commission, but failure to comply with a technical requirement would not. As examples of such substantive requirements, the Court identified the statutory requirement that the broker be licensed at the time the claim for commission arose, and the statutory requirement that the listing agreement be signed by both the broker and the client. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

Kahana Feld Partner Jeff Miragliotta and Senior Associate Rachael Marvin Obtain Early Dismissal of Commercial Litigation Cases in New York and New Jersey

August 26, 2024 — Rachael Marvin - Kahana Feld
KF attorneys Jeff Miragliotta and Rachael Marvin recently secured early dismissal for a commercial real estate client on pre-answer motions to dismiss for two cases involving disputes over commercial properties in Union County, New Jersey and Suffolk County, New York. Plaintiff argued it was entitled to damages in excess of 50 million dollars, including punitive damages, for claims involving trade libel, defamation, conspiracy, and tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage for reports that were prepared in connection with the use of a commercial building in Union County, New Jersey. KF attorneys successfully argued that the statute of limitations had run for each of plaintiff’s claims by utilizing a decision from the Supreme Court of New Jersey in an underlying case filed against Union County. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rachel Marvin, Kahana Feld
Ms. Marvin may be contacted at rmarvin@kahanafeld.com

Mondaq’s 2023 Construction Comparative Guide

February 27, 2023 — Michael S. Zicherman - Peckar & Abramson
Peckar & Abramson partner Michael S. Zicherman is the author of the United States chapter of Mondaq‘s 2023 “Construction Comparative Guide.” The Guide provides an overview of some of the key points of construction law and practice and allows readers to compare regulatory environments and laws across multiple jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Qatar, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States, and United Arab Emirates. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Zicherman, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Zicherman may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES