Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

February 11, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Damage to the concrete floor installed by the insured subcontractor was not property damage and thus not covered under the insured's CGL policy. Kalman Floor Co. v. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3319 (D. Colo Jan. 8, 2019). In 2007, Kalman Floor Co. was subcontracted to construct over 158,000 square feet of concrete flooring for a cold storage facility. The concrete floor was completed in late 2008. In late 2009, the contractor notified Kalman that pockmarks, or "pop-outs," were visible on the concrete flooring. The only damage to tangible property in the facility caused by the pop-outs was the concrete flooring itself. On January 31, 2009, Old Republic issued a general liability policy to Kalman for one year. The policy excluded for damage to "your work," defined as "work or operations performed by you or on your behalf." Old Republic denied coverage for damage to the concrete floor. Kalman sued, seeking a declaration that the exclusions did not bar coverage. 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

Just Decided – New Jersey Supreme Court: Insurers Can Look To Extrinsic Evidence To Deny a Defense

September 05, 2022 — Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Norman International, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company, No. 086155 (N.J. Aug. 11, 2022). At issue was coverage for a work-site injury and the interpretation of a policy exclusion for operations or activities performed by an insured in certain counties in New York. The case is significant in terms of addressing causation for purposes of the application of exclusions. But the more wide-reaching issue has nothing to do with the scope of the exclusion. The real story from Norman is the New Jersey high court’s pronouncement that an insurer, in certain circumstances, can use extrinsic evidence to deny a defense to its insured. New Jersey duty to defend law has been a jungle land and in need of more supreme court guidance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

May 31, 2021 — Copernicus T. Gaza, Robert S. Nobel, Craig Rokuson, Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
The New York State Assembly is considering A07285, which creates a private right of action for bad faith “if the insurer unreasonably refuses to pay or unreasonably delays payment without substantial justification.” The bill was first introduced in 2013 but was reintroduced on May 3, 2021 and has received some recent attention. According to the bill, an insurer acts unreasonably when it (among other things):

Fails to provide the claimant with accurate information regarding policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue; or
Fails to effectuate in good faith a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim or portion of a claim and where the insurer failed to reasonably accord at least equal or more favorable consideration to its insured's interests as it did to its own interests, and thereby exposed the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits or caused other damage to a claimant; or
Fails to provide a timely written denial of a claimant's claim, or portion thereof, with a full and complete explanation of such denial, including references to specific policy provisions wherever possible; or
Fails to act in good faith by compelling such claimant to initiate a lawsuit to recover under the policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in such suit; or
Fails to timely provide, on request of the policy holder or the policy holder's representative, all reports or other documentation arising from the investigation of a claim; or
Refuses to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation prior to such refusal.

Reprinted courtesy of Copernicus T. Gaza, Traub Lieberman, Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman, Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman Mr. Gaza may be contacted at cgaza@tlsslaw.com Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

September 30, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Konrad R. Krebs - White and Williams LLP
The standard for an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy has been addressed on several occasions by Pennsylvania courts when an insured has allegedly performed faulty workmanship on a construction project. Specifically, in Pennsylvania, a claim for damages arising from an insured’s performance of faulty workmanship pursuant to a construction contract, where the only damage is to property supplied by the insured or worked on by the insured, does not constitute an “occurrence” under the standard commercial general liability insurance policy definition. But what about the circumstance when the insured has failed to perform contractual duties where the claim is for property damage to property not supplied by the insured or unrelated to the service the insured contracted to provide? The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed this question in Pennsylvania Manufacturers Indemnity Co. v. Pottstown Industrial Complex LP, No. 3489 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. 223, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 729* (Pa. Super. 2019). Pottstown Industrial Complex arose out of an underlying dispute between a landlord and a commercial tenant who had leased space to store its product inventory. The tenant alleged that the landlord was responsible under the lease for keeping the roof “in serviceable condition in repair.” Notwithstanding this responsibility, the tenant alleged that the landlord failed to properly maintain and repair the roof, resulting in leaks and flooding during four separate rainstorms, destroying over $700,000 in inventory. The tenant specifically alleged that the floods were caused by poor caulking of the roof, gaps and separations in the roofing membrane, undersized drain openings, and accumulated debris and clogged drains. The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination that there was no coverage under a commercial general liability policy issued to the landlord. Following a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court entered an order in favor of the insurer, holding that allegations of inadequate roof repairs were claims for faulty workmanship and were not covered under Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006) and Millers Capital Insurance Co. v. Gambone Brothers Development Co., 941 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 2007). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Konrad Krebs, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractors Pay Heed: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Two Important Issues For Bid Protestors

September 13, 2021 — Andrew Balland - ConsensusDocs
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) recently decided two cases that are relevant to many disappointed offerors considering a bid protest. One decision rendered in March 2021 confirmed the authority of the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) to hear a protest based on an agency’s breach of an implied-in-fact contract. A second decision issued in February 2021 reversed a COFC decision from last year regarding the timeliness requirements to obtain a CICA stay and their interplay with Department of Defense (DoD) enhanced debriefing regulations. Federal Circuit Confirms The Court Of Federal Claims’ Jurisdiction Over Procurement-Related Implied Contract Claims When a contractor’s bid protest is denied by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the unsuccessful protestor may challenge the GAO’s decision as arbitrary and capricious in an action before the COFC. While 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) authorizes the COFC to hear such procurement-related challenges, § 1491(a) also permits the court to adjudicate claims against the United States based on any express or implied contracts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Balland, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP

Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal

September 11, 2023 — Colleen E. Hastie & Jeffrey George - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The lawsuit, commenced by Plaintiff in 2015, alleged medical malpractice stemming from treatment Plaintiff received at a New York medical facility after falling out of a window at a rental property owned by Traub Lieberman’s client (“Property Owner”). Property Owner moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence in support of its claims, or in the alternative, compel plaintiff to produce all outstanding discovery. The Medical Facility cross-moved for the same relief. Defendants agreed to adjourn the motion until after plaintiff’s deposition, but plaintiff made no effort to secure an adjournment with the court and plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion, allowing the motion to be granted on default. Plaintiff waited nearly a year to file a motion to vacate the default judgment, despite receiving notification of the default from defense counsel. Property Owner, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, pointed to plaintiff’s long history of dilatory conduct and failure to comply with discovery orders in support of its position that plaintiff failed to show any good cause for its default on the motion to dismiss. Reprinted courtesy of Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman and Jeffrey George, Traub Lieberman Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com Mr. George may be contacted at jgeorge@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

October 28, 2024 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Review of (a) RCW 60.30.010-020, (b) RCW 49.17.530, (c) RCW 19.95.020, (d) RCW 39.116.005, et seq., (e) RCW 36.70B.080, and (f) RCW 39.12.010 and .13 While much of the focus on the recent legislative updates has been on RCW 39.04.360, a number of other legislative changes may also have significant impacts on Washington’s construction industry. Six of these changes are summarized below. A. RCW 60.30.010 and .020 (SSB 6108) – Concerning Retainage on Private Construction, Effective June 6, 2024 Last year, ESSB 5528 imposed restrictions and obligations related to retainage and timing of final payment on private (non-public works) projects. It capped retainage at 5%, required prompt payment on final payments, and required owners to accept a retainage bond on private construction projects, excluding single-family residential construction less than 12 units. This year, SSB 6108 adds suppliers to the statutes (RCW 60.30.010 and 0.020) pertaining to retainage on private construction projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

The Economic Loss Rule: From Where Does the Duty Arise?

January 24, 2022 — Taylor Hite - Colorado Construction Litigation
When entering a contract under Colorado law or attempting to enforce your rights when the other party breaches a contract, it is important to know and understand what rights you have and what claims you can bring or defenses you may have. One important consideration is Colorado’s version of the economic loss rule. The Colorado Supreme Court has issued several opinions clarifying the scope of the economic loss rule since it adopted the rule in 2000. The purpose of the economic loss rule is to maintain the boundary between contract law and tort law. In Colorado, the economic loss rule provides that a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for the breach without an independent duty of care under tort law. In most instances the economic loss rule will not bar intentional tort claims. The question becomes: from where does the duty arise? Is there an independent duty in tort law? Did the duty arise solely from the contract? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Taylor Hite, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Hite may be contacted at Hite@hhmrlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES