Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Ill-fated Complaint Fails to State Claims Against Broker and FEMA

September 10, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
A complaint lodged against the insureds' broker and FEMA was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Lopez v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109803 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 2014). The insureds held a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) issued by FEMA, but sold by the broker. The insureds alleged that their property was totally destroyed by Hurricane Isaac. FEMA paid the insureds $234,513.02 for damage to their dwelling and $80,566.17 for its contents, for a total of $315,079.19. This was $34,920.81 below the policy limits. The insureds sued, claiming FEMA negligently miscalculated their damages, misvalued their property, and improperly adjusted their claim. The insureds also alleged that the broker failed to properly advise them regarding the nature of their coverage, the true value of their property, or to purchase the correct amount of insurance on their behalf. The negligent procurement claim against the broker failed because the insureds did not allege any specific facts tending to establish that the broker failed to use reasonable diligence in procuring their insurance. Likewise, the negligent misrepresentation claim against the broker was dismissed. Insurance agents had a duty to supply their customers with correct information, and they could be liable for negligent misrepresentation if they provided incorrect information and an insured was damaged. Here, the insureds did not allege a breach of the duty to supply correct information. 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

Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose

June 22, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
As previously reported, SB 20-138, “Concerning Increased Consumer Protection for Homeowners Seeking Relief for Construction Defects,” would have extended the Colorado statute of repose applicable to construction defect claims. Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would have:

Extended Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
Required tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
Permitted statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Among the important measures of the U.S. economy are housing starts and completions. The data on these are collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, which is itself part of the Commerce Department. Due to the October government shutdown, the Census Bureau was unable to complete timely collection of housing starts, among other data collected by the bureau. Estimates of housing permits issued during September and October will be released on November 26. However, the data on housing starts and completions will be delayed until December 18. This report will include September through November. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

November 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction." The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent. Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

September 24, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit determined there was no coverage for faulty workmanship causing property damage to the insured's project. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Board of Directors of Regal Lofts Condominium Ass'n, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16250 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2014). The developer converted a vacant building into a condominium. The construction was completed in 2000. The Condominium Board took control of the condo association on July 27, 2000. As early as May 2000, one homeowner was aware of water damage problems in the building. Other complaints surfaced. An investigation found that the exterior brick masonry walls were not fully waterproofed, which caused leaks. The investigation further showed that deteriorated conditions had likely developed over many years, even prior to the condominium conversion, but the present water penetration was caused by the inadequate restoration of the walls to a water-tight condition. The underlying action was filed against the developer for failure to properly construct the exterior walls. The developer's carrier, Nautilus, denied coverage. In an amended complaint, the Board added a count of negligence. Again, Nautilus denied coverage. The Board's second amended complaint alleged that the developer's negligence had caused damage to personal property within the building, in addition to the interior of the building and the building itself. For the third time, Nautilus denied coverage and filed for declaratory relief. 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 Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

January 21, 2019 — Timothy Carroll & Anthony Miscioscia - White and Williams
A recent opinion by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (Second Department) highlights the potential risks for an insurer leaving an insured unrepresented while the insurer pursues other parties or insurers who may be primarily responsible for defending the insured. In refusing to overturn a default judgment entered against an insured while its insurer knew that a complaint had been filed but refused to defend, the New York court’s decision raises questions about how claims adjusters are to effectively manage new claims to prevent a default judgment being entered against the insured, while at the same time ensuring that the appropriate party or insurance company handles the insured’s defense. In Kaung Hea Lee v. 354 Management Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7749 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2018) (354 Management) the underlying plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendant insured due to its failure to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs then moved to determine the extent of damages to which they were entitled by virtue of the default judgment. The defendant opposed that motion, relying on an affidavit from a senior liability claims adjuster employed by the defendant’s insurer. “In the affidavit, the claim adjuster stated that she did not assign an attorney to answer the complaint because the codefendant . . . was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant [insured], and she had been attempting to have either [the codefendant] or its insurer provide an attorney” for the defendant. However, it was determined that the claims adjuster knew about the plaintiffs’ complaint two weeks after the plaintiffs served it on the defendant and months before the plaintiffs moved for default judgment. Despite this knowledge, the defendant’s insurer did not provide a defense or, apparently, obtain an extension of time to respond to the complaint, which led to the default judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Deadline Nears for “Green Performance Bond” Implementation

December 03, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this weeks Guest Post Friday at Musings, we welcome Surety Bonds.com, a leading online surety provider. SuretyBonds.com specializes in educating current and prospective business owners about local surety requirements. To keep up with surety bond trends, follow and Surety Bonds Insider blog and @suretybond on Twitter. Professionals who work in the construction industry know the laws that regulate the market change constantly. Unfortunately, even government agencies are flawed, which means they sometimes establish nonsensical, arbitrary regulations that leave construction professionals even more confused as to how they’re expected to do their jobs. 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

Appellate Division Confirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owners in Action Alleging Labor Law Violations

June 19, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman
In this action brought before the State of New York, Appellate Division, Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle represented Defendant Property Owners in an appeal asserting Labor Law violations. In the underlying case, Plaintiff allegedly was injured while working on a construction project at a property owned by the Defendants, alleging violations of Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6). The Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), arguing that they could not be held liable for such violations due to the exemption set forth in those statutes for owners of one- and two-family dwellings. The Supreme Court of the State of New York granted the motion for summary judgment, and the Plaintiffs appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES