Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

August 03, 2022 — Anne Idsal Austin, Shelby L. Dyl & Sheila McCafferty Harvey - Pillsbury
Takeaways

The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.

Introduction On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production. The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions. Reprinted courtesy of Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury, Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak

March 06, 2023 — Kayla S. O'Connor - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Rhode Island case of Regan Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Company, Inc., et. al.1 provides much-needed guidance regarding ambiguity and the term “pollution.” In Regan, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a pollution exclusion contained in the Plaintiff’s “Commercial Package Policy” was ambiguous as to whether home heating oil that escaped into a customer’s basement constituted a “pollutant” under the policy. This case stems from a 2015 incident wherein Regan was in the process of removing an older heating system and installing a new heating system in a customer’s home when that customer discovered 170 gallons of home heating oil in his basement. The customer sued Regan, alleging negligence and demanding remediation for the property damage caused by the oil leak. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kayla S. O'Connor, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. O'Connor may be contacted at KOconnor@sdvlaw.com

South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs

July 30, 2014 — Scott Patterson - CD Coverage
In Precision Walls, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 2013-000787 (S.C. Ct. App. July 23, 2014), SYS was the general contractor for a project. SYS contracted with Precision for the supply and installation of exterior insulation board, to include the taping of all joints. After Precision completed its work, another subcontractor began construction of the brick veneer wall over the insulation board. During construction of the brick wall, some of the joint sealing tape installed by Precision began to come loose. To correct the problem, the existing portion of the brick veneer wall had to be torn down, all of the joint sealing tape removed and replaced, and the brick veneer wall rebuilt. SYS deducted the cost of tearing down and rebuilding the brick veneer wall from Precision’s contract. Precision sought reimbursement for this amount from its CGL policy issued by Liberty Mutual. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

David M. McLain to Speak at the CLM Claims College - School of Construction - Scholarships Available

July 28, 2016 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
I am happy to have been asked to serve as an instructor at this year's CLM Claims College – School of Construction, to be held at the Marriott Baltimore Waterfront in Baltimore, Maryland on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 through Saturday, September 10, 2016. Overview of the 2016 School of Construction Construction claims present myriad complexities in claim handling. Construction defect lawsuits are often multi-party cases with cross claims and third-party claims between and among the numerous defendants. Insurance coverage is intertwined and complex due to the interplay of primary, excess, wrap, and additional insurers for the numerous defendants. All this is further complicated by statutes and regulations, inconsistent case law and procedural peculiarities throughout the United States. The economic stakes are high as the damages claims can be in the multi-millions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Colorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable

April 03, 2019 — Steve Heisdorffer - Colorado Construction Litigation
One of the 407 bills the Colorado legislature is considering as of the date of this blog post is House Bill 19-1170, the Residential Tenants Health and Safety Act, which can be found at https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1170 and clicking on the link for the recent bill text. The bill passed the House on February 26 and is in the Senate for consideration. The bill currently adds two substantive conditions to those conditions that make a residential premises uninhabitable. One is the lack of functioning appliances that conformed to applicable law when installed and that are maintained in good working order. The second is “mold that is associated with dampness, or there is any other condition causing the premises to be damp, which condition, if not remedied, would materially interfere with the health or safety of the tenant…,” referred to here as “the mold or dampness provision.” The bill also amends various procedural provisions of Colorado law to make enforcement by a tenant easier and broadens tenant remedies. The bill grants jurisdiction to county and small claims courts to grant injunctions for breach. This article focuses on the mold or dampness provision. The mold or dampness provision is vague and will likely lead to abuse. First, there is mold everywhere. While expert witnesses routinely testify about the level of exposure that is unacceptable, no generally accepted medical standards for an unacceptable level of mold exposure currently exist, and each person reacts to mold differently. There is no requirement in the bill that mold exposure exceed levels that are generally considered harmful by experts in the field, or even in excess of naturally occurring background levels. Second, some sources estimate that there are over 100,000 different species of mold. No harmful effects have been shown for many species of mold, while other species of mold are considered harmful. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at heisdorffer@hhmrlaw.com

New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

April 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Mary Pat Gallagher writing for the New Jersey Law Journal reported that “[l]awyers who track down an opposing expert's testimony from prior cases must disclose that fact during discovery but need not say whether they plan to use it in cross-examining the expert at trial, a New Jersey appeals court says.” In Dalton v. Crawley, the Appellate Division held that “[d]ecisions about cross-examination ‘involve the attorney's mental processes, so they are inherently work product.’” The issue began when “one of the defense lawyers, Michael McGann, figured out from the deposition questions Mahoney directed at one of his experts that he had transcripts of testimony from earlier cases,” according to the New Jersey Law Journal. “Hit with a notice to produce the transcripts, [Plaintiff attorney Brian] Mahoney refused, saying they were ‘attorney work product and we will not be telling you what we have developed regarding this expert.’" The New Jersey Law Journal declared that the “ruling means both sides will have to indicate what transcripts they have gathered for use—giving the name of each expert as well as the name and docket number of the prior cases where those experts testified. “ Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Saved By The Statute: The Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Bar Claims Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

May 10, 2021 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Earl v. NVR, Inc., No. 20-2109, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6451, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) considered whether, under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiff’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims against the builder of her home were barred by the economic loss doctrine. The UTPCPL is a Pennsylvania statute that prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” 73 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 201-3. The Third Circuit previously addressed the impact of the economic loss doctrine on UTPCPL claims in Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002). In Werwinski, the court held that the plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine. The Court of Appeals overturned its decision in Werwinski and held that the economic loss doctrine does not bar UTPCPL claims since such claims are statutory, and not based in tort. In Earl, the plaintiff, Lisa Earl, entered into an agreement with defendant NVR, Inc. (NVR) for the construction and sale of a home in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Earl learned of the home through NVR’s marketing, which described the home as containing “quality architecture, timeless design, and beautiful finishes.” Ms. Earl alleged that during the construction of the home, she had further discussions with agents of NVR, who made representations that the home would be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and that any deficiencies noted by Ms. Earl would be remedied. The defendant also assured Ms. Earl that the home would be constructed in accordance with relevant building codes and industry standards. After moving into the home, Ms. Earl discovered several material defects in the construction. She provided notice of these defects to NVR, but NVR’s attempts to repair some of the defects were inadequate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

September 10, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Douglas v. Fidelity National Ins. (No. A137645; filed 8/29/14), a California appeals court held that it was a jury question whether a retail insurance service with limited binding authority should be deemed a broker or an agent for the purpose of determining if application misrepresentations would void coverage. In Douglas, the homeowners needed insurance for a house they had used as a group home. They sought coverage from Cost-U-Less, which provided personal lines insurance from, among others, Fidelity National Insurance Company. According to the couple’s wife, she went to a Cost-U-Less office where she answered application questions from a person on the telephone, who was later identified as an employee of another company, InsZone. InsZone had a producer contract with Fidelity. In practice, InsZone would be contacted by Cost-U-Less via telephone, at which point an InsZone employee would verbally solicit information from the client, with the information being entered into a computer by the InsZone employee and then transmitted electronically to Fidelity. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES