SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

“Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

April 18, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As they say, when it rains, it pours. Indemnity and insurance are the “Big Two” when it comes to risk avoidance on construction projects. The next case, LaBarbera v. Security National Security Company, 86 Cal.App.5th 1329 (2022), involves both. It’s an interesting case, which I think could have gone either way, involving claims by a higher-tiered party that they were a third party beneficiary under an insurance policy in which they were not named as an additional insured. The LaBarbera Case The Indemnity Provision and Insurance Policy In June 1016, Chris LaBarbera hired Richard Knight doing business as Knight Construction to remodel his house in Carmichael, California. The construction contract included an indemnity provision which provided that Knight would defend and indemnify LaBarbera from all claims arising out the remodeling work except for claims arising from LaBarbera’s sole negligence and willful misconduct. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

November 18, 2019 — Scott D. Cessar - Construction Executive
Over the last decade or so, there has been far more judicial willingness to adopt legal theories that result in an increased risk of exposure to construction managers and consultants working on construction projects. This has resulted in a greater likelihood of lawsuits being filed that name construction managers and consultants as defendants and a greater likelihood of those lawsuits surviving efforts to have the lawsuits dismissed prior to trial. The consequence of more claims has led to increased costs for legal expenses, settlements and uncompensated personnel time devoted to the defense of the claims. This expansion of potential liability may be broken into two sets:

1. claims for pure economic loss not arising from property damage or personal injury by parties not in a contractual relationship with a construction manager or consultant; and
2. claims for property damage or personal injury by a party not in a contractual relationship with a construction manager or consultant.

The first set concerns claims by a contractor against a construction manager or consultant that its breach of duties owed to the owner on a project and/or its provision of incomplete or inaccurate information on a project, which it knew, or should have reasonably anticipated, would be relied on by the contractor, resulted in damages to the contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Scott D. Cessar, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Cessar may be contacted at scessar@eckertseamans.com

---

Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

March 19, 2014 — Jesse Drucker – Bloomberg
Amancio Ortega Gaona, already the world’s fourth-richest person based on the success of his Zara fashion retail stores, has quietly amassed a real estate empire worth as much as $10 billion and is emerging as a formidable competitor for prime properties from London to Beverly Hills. Relying on all-cash offers, he has outbid the world’s biggest institutional funds and professional property investors, such as Tishman Speyer Properties LP. “He’s at the very highest levels of high net worth investment and competing with some of the biggest sovereign wealth funds for the primest properties in the market,” said Joseph Kelly, director of market analysis for Real Capital Analytics in London, a real estate research firm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Drucker, Bloomberg
Mr. Drucker may be contacted at jdrucker4@bloomberg.net

---

OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

October 30, 2018 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On October 9, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., Slip Op. 2018-Ohio-4057, finding that a general contractor was not entitled to defense or indemnity from its CGL insurer in a construction defect suit brought by a project owner post-project completion. With this decision, Ohio has solidified its place amongst a diminishing number of states, including Pennsylvania and Kentucky, which hold that there is no coverage for defective construction claims because those losses do not present the level of fortuity required to trigger CGL coverage. This places Ohio amongst the worst in the country on this issue at a time when numerous states have abandoned old precedent and moved towards a policyholder friendly analysis. Ohio Northern University (“ONU”) hired Charles Construction Services, Inc. (“CCS”) to construct the University Inn and Conference Center, a new hotel and conference center on their campus in Ada, Ohio. CCS purchased CGL insurance from Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”) insuring the project. Following completion of the project, ONU sued CCS alleging defects in the construction of the completed project, including allegations that windows improperly installed by one subcontractor led to damage to walls built by another subcontractor. CIC agreed to defend CCS under a reservation of rights but intervened in the action between ONU and CCS to pursue a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify its insured for the alleged losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

---

Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

April 25, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

After the insurer denied coverage in a homeowner’s policy for construction defects under various exclusions, the court found the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous.Kesling v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38857 (D. Colo. March 22, 2012).



After purchasing a home from the sellers, the insureds noticed problems with the deck of the home. Massive cracking appeared, causing lifting and leaking on the deck and water running through the exterior foundation wall into the home. There was also damage to the roof and crawlspace.



The insureds had a homeowner’s policy with American Family, which covered accidental direct physical loss to property described in the policy unless the loss was excluded. They requested coverage for "conditions, defects and damages." American Family denied coverage because wear and tear, as well as damage to foundations, floors and roofs were excluded. The policy did provide coverage, however, for "any resulting loss to property described . . . above, not excluded or excepted in this policy.



When coverage was denied, the insureds sued American Family.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?

October 21, 2019 — Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP - ConsensusDocs
Conflict in a negotiation is to be expected and is arguably healthy for the process. Owners and contractors are constantly engaged in negotiations; whether it be negotiating changes to the work, changes to the schedule, or changes to the contractual terms. But at what point does taking a strong position in a negotiation cross the line and become coercion or bad faith? A recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals touched on this very issue. While this is a government contract case, the issues discussed in this case (namely negotiating a change) are routinely encountered in just about every construction project. This decision is instructive because it adds to a trending line of cases that limit an owner’s and contractor’s negotiation tactics. On August 5, 2019, the board issued an opinion in the appeal of Sand Point Services, LLC vs. NASA, ASBCA Nos. 6189. In Sand Point Services, the contractor was hired by the owner to repair the Wallops Flight Facility’s aircraft parking apron. During its work, the contractor hit a differing site condition, namely unsuitable soils. The contractor sought additional time and money for this differing site condition. The owner ultimately responded with a show cause letter to the contractor claiming, among other breaches, that the contractor was significantly behind schedule. This was generally viewed by all parties as the start of default proceedings against the contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP
Mr. Millan may be contacted at smillan@joneswalker.com

---

Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

October 10, 2022 — Kerianne Kane Luckett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Can an indemnification clause in a commercial lease obligate a tenant’s insurer to defend a landlord? Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York said, “Yes!” On August 9, 2022, the district court issued a decision in ConMed Corp. vs. Federal Insurance Company, holding that the indemnification clause in a policyholder’s lease triggered the insurer’s duty to defend the landlord in an action arising out of the tenant’s negligence. Facts of the Case ConMed is a medical technology company that leases warehouse space in Georgia from Breit Industrial Canyon (“the Landlord”) to sterilize its medical equipment. ConMed’s employees filed suit against ConMed and a contractor that performed the sterilization, alleging injuries caused by exposure to excessive amounts of chemicals used in the sterilization process (the “ConMed Action”). Thereafter, ConMed’s employees filed a separate lawsuit against the Landlord, alleging that the Landlord permitted storage of unsafe levels of the chemicals at the warehouse without adequate ventilation (the “Landlord Action”). The lease agreement required ConMed to indemnify the Landlord “except in the event of, and to the extent of, Landlord’s negligence or willful misconduct.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne Kane Luckett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Luckett may be contacted at KKane@sdvlaw.com

---

Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

January 22, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that there was no duty to indemnify after the insured settled without consent of the insurer. Perini/Tompkins Joint Venture v. ACE American Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24865 (4th Cir. Dec. 16, 2013). The insured, a joint venture, was hired as manager for the construction of a $900 million hotel and convention center. OCIP and excess policies were obtained through ACE. The project was also insured by a Builders Risk Policy through Factory Mutual Insurance Company. During construction, a rod eroded, causing the atrium to collapse. Substantial property damage occurred and the completion of the project was delayed for several months. 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

---