SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

February 28, 2022 — Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company1 benefits insureds seeking to establish an insurer’s duty to defend. As a matter of first impression, the court clarified that insureds have the burden to prove that an exception to a policy exclusion applies in order to trigger the insured’s duty to defend. However, while the policyholder may use extrinsic evidence to establish the insurer’s duty to defend, the insurer may not use extrinsic evidence to deny that duty. The facts of the underlying claim are set in the 2000s when the insured subcontractors worked to build thousands of homes in Nevada. The subcontractors were insured by Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) during that period. After the homes were complete, the subcontractors switched from Zurich to Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”). Between 2010 and 2013, homeowners brought claims against the subcontractors alleging that the properties were damaged due to construction defects. The subcontractors tendered the claims to Zurich as the insurer at the time of construction. Zurich then sought defense and indemnification from Ironshore. Ironshore denied coverage under a “continuing and progressive” policy exclusion, claiming that the property damage occurred due to faulty work that predated the Ironshore policy. Notably, an exception to the exclusion applied if “sudden and accidental” property damage occurred within the Ironshore policy period. Given that the underlying lawsuits did not include specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred, Ironshore and Zurich disagreed on whether the exception to the exclusion was triggered.. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

---

Small to Midsize Builders Making Profit on Overlooked Lots

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Teresa Burney and John Caulfield writing in Big Builder discussed how many small to mid-size firms are making profits off of lots overlooked by the big building firms. They stated that “builders are scouring the country for land to meet the new housing demand, and they are having trouble finding good lots in the right place at the right price. This is particularly true for small to mid-size builders.” While the number of finished lots may be up, Burney and Caulfield declared that “the numbers are deceptive because roughly 25 percent of them are in what Metrostudy, BUILDER’s research company, describes as ‘D’ and ‘F’ locations—places so undesirable that nobody wants to live there.” Strategies that builders have tried with success, according to Big Builder, include looking for older communities that local builders have forgotten, or choosing a lot that needs more work than most builders would want to deal with. “We are kind of a savior for developers with troublesome leftover lots,” William H. Hoover, president of Texas-based Inland Homes, told Big Builder. “You have got some ugly lots, let us come and finish out your community.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

February 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to readMedia, The Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York (LRANY) has released “‘Victims of the Scaffold Law’ video series” that highlights “the impact of New York's ‘Scaffold Law’ on small businesses, taxpayers, and, specifically New York's Minority and Woman Owned Business Enterprises.” The New York Scaffold Law “imposes total liability on contractors and property owners in lawsuits for gravity-related construction accidents, regardless of any contributing negligence by the worker,” reports readMedia. Furthermore, the law “is responsible for over half of the largest settlements in the state and dramatically increases the cost of liability insurance and construction in New York.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

April 03, 2019 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Recently a client asked me to review a contract for his Firm. The Owner, who had prepared the draft, had inserted a rather stringent “duty to defend” clause. As I told my client, a duty to defend clause is not a good idea for a couple of reasons. First, if you agree to provide a defense, what that means is that you are footing the bill for the Owner if the Owner is sued by another party. Think about that for a minute. You are paying legal fees for someone else’s legal defense. You may or may not be able to direct the litigation or have a say in who is hired. Can you say open check book? Secondly, and more importantly, the duty to defend is almost never insurable. What that means is that your professional liability carrier will not be footing the bill—your Firm will be doing it. This is not a case of adding the Owner as an additional insured, so do not confuse the two. Agreeing to a duty to defend is an extremely burdensome, and potentially costly, mistake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

July 30, 2015 — Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Lee v. California Capital Insurance Co. (No. A136280; filed 6/18/15), a California Court of Appeal held that it was error for an appraisal panel to assign loss values to items simply because they were listed in the insured’s scope of loss, and regardless of whether inspection revealed they were undamaged or never existed. California Capital insured a twelve unit apartment building owned by Ms. Lee in Oakland, California. When a fire damaged one unit, the insurer prepared an estimate of $69,255 and paid an undisputed amount of $46,755, which was the amount of the estimate less depreciation and the deductible. But Ms. Lee claimed that six of the units had been damaged, and she retained a public adjuster who submitted a claim exceeding $800,000. This included cleaning, asbestos abatement, reconstruction of the affected apartments, and loss of rent. She claimed burn damage to one unit and smoke damage requiring complete replacement of all the interior rooms of five apartments, along with removal of a portion of the stucco exterior and iron balcony railings and repainting of the entire building. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

DoD Will Require New Cybersecurity Standards in 2020: Could Other Agencies Be Next?

September 09, 2019 — Alexander Gorelik - Smith Currie
The Department of Defense (DoD) has announced a new five-tier standard for cybersecurity certification, which it calls the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or “CMMC”. Taking an unusual approach to informing the industry, the DoD has provided only limited information about the new standard through its website and a “road tour” led by the newly-appointed head of the DoD’s Chief Information Security Office (CISO), Ms. Katie Arrington. During her recent presentation at the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) meeting, on August 8, 2019, Ms. Arrington revealed several new details about the requirements. Outlined below are the most significant facts from that presentation and the DoD’s website:

All companies doing business with DoD (and all tiers of subcontractors) will need to obtain CMMC certifications.

DoD will require the new certifications from all contractors (including suppliers and subcontractors) that are performing under a DoD contract. Even contractors that do not process or handle Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) must obtain CMMCs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alexander Gorelik, Smith Currie
Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com

---

Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of North Dakota has ruled in Leno v. K & L Homes, affirming the verdict of the lower court. K & L Homes argued that district court had erred in several ways, including by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, denying a request for inspection, and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during jury viewing.

The Lenos purchased a home constructed by K & L Homes, after which they alleged they found cracks, unevenness, and shifting, which they attributed to improper construction. They claimed negligence on the part of K & L Homes. K & L Homes responded that the Lenos were responsible for damage to the home. The Lenos dropped their negligence claim, arguing breach of contract and implied warranties.

Before the trial, after the discovery period had passed, K & L Homes requested to inspect the home. This was rejected by the court. Kelly Moldenhauer, the owner of K & L Homes sought to testify about his observations during the jury’s viewing of the house. The court denied this too. The jury found that K & L was in breach of contract and awarded damages to the Lenos.

The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that K & L Homes gave “warranties that the home had been built according to local building codes and laws, and that the house was fit for its particular purpose as a residence.” The court found that a defective home breached this warranty. Further, the home violated an implied warranty of fitness.

The district court had denied K & L’s request to inspect the home, as the discovery period had ended and it would not give the Lenos time to do further discovery of their own. At the time of the request, there was only twenty-two days before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an abuse of discretion of the part of the district court.

The Lenos had requested that Moldenhauer’s testimony not be permitted, as it would “have the same effect as if the court had granted K & L Homes’ pretrial request for inspection.” K & L Homes agreed to this in court, replying, “okay.”

The decision affirms the judgment of the district court and the damages awarded to the Lenos by the jury.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In 1994, after the Northridge earthquake lead to the deaths of 57 people and $2 billion in damage, the Los Angeles City Council considered making a list of buildings that were vulnerable to failure in earthquakes and mandating that they be made seismically sound. The measure did not come to pass. Tom LaBonge, a member of the council, is seeking to finally get that inventory done. According to the Los Angeles Times, thousands of buildings in Los Angeles were constructed with a ground floor level that is insufficient to support the rest of the building in the event of an earthquake. These “soft-story” buildings can be reinforced to better resist earthquakes, but first they need to be identified. Owners of apartment buildings worry about the cost of the retrofits, suggesting that if the city is going to come up with mandatory retrofits, they should also “help property owners pay for it,” as Beverly Kenworthy, the executive director of the Los Angeles division of the California Apartment Association told the Times. San Francisco recently did require retrofits, finding about 3,000 apartment buildings that were at seismic risk. Still, San Francisco doesn’t seem to have moved any faster than Los Angeles, as they were responding to the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, seven years before the Northridge quake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---