SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work

December 20, 2017 — Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Although the homeowners did not own their homes when the subcontractors completed their work, the general contractor was still covered as an additional insured for the homeowners' suits based on the ongoing operations endorsement in the subcontractors' policies. McMillin Mgmt. Servs. v. Fin. Pac. Ins. Co., 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1000 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017). McMillin was the developer and general contractor for the project. Among the subcontractors were Martinez Construction Concrete Contractor, Inc. and Rozema Corporation. Martinez performed concrete flatwork between 2003 and November 2005. Rozema performed lath and stucco work between March 2003 and October 2005. Lexington issued CGL policies to Martinez and Rozema. McMillin was an additional insured under both policies, "but only with respect to liability arising out of your [i.e., Martinez's or Rozema's] ongoing operations performed for [McMillin]." An exclusion provided that the insurance did not apply to property damage occurring after the insured subcontractor had completed operations on behalf of the additional insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

October 14, 2019 — Ashley L. Cooper & Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Determining the scope of discovery can be challenging, particularly when an insurance bad faith claim is involved. Courts often face the difficult decision of weighing the importance of preserving attorney-client privilege with the public policy rationale of protecting an insured against their insurer’s bad faith behavior. The Supreme Court of South Carolina recently recognized this dilemma by rejecting a hardline approach to bad faith discovery disputes and adopting a case-by-case analysis. The case, In re Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.,1 arose out of a construction defect claim. ContraVest Construction Company (“ContraVest”) constructed a development in South Carolina and was later sued for alleged defective construction. ContraVest sought coverage for the lawsuit from its insurers, including Mount Hawley Insurance Company (“Mount Hawley”), which had provided excess commercial liability insurance to ContraVest during the relevant timeframe. Mount Hawley denied the claim, which prompted ContraVest to sue it for bad faith, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Las Vegas’ McCarran Tower Construction Issues Delays Opening

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that an improperly applied chemical coating might delay the opening of McCarran International Airport’s Federal Aviation Administration tower by a year and cost millions of dollars to repair. The chemical coating was intended “to prevent the spread of toxic fungus,” but was “improperly applied and is ineffective,” workers on the site told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “Officials said the” $99 million, 352-foot “tower was expected to be operational by 2015, but the FAA now says it won’t be able to use the facility until late 2016 or early 2017.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Spa High-Rise Residents Frustrated by Construction Defects

February 07, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Is this part of the spa treatment? A couple has sued over problems at Miraval Living, a luxury high-rise on the East Side of Manhattan. There was supposed to be ballroom dancing, culinary classes, and yoga. Anthony Argyrides's lawsuit notes that those didn't materialize. What they did get, he claims, was faulty plumbing, crumbling fixtures, and defective floor tiles. Mr. Argyrides claims that his front door "spontaneously fell of its hinges and nearly hit FiOS installation workers." Meanwhile, building management has ended their agreement with Miraval and need to find someone else to operate the building's spa. Argyrides and his fellow building residents might need something more than a few deep calming breaths. He's suing for $5.5 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The school district in the Chicago-area town of Lake Zurich has made last settlement in a construction defect lawsuit. The $80,000 settlement from Terra Group of Chicago brings the total settlement with the Community Unit School District 95 to about $1.9 million. Other firms included Bovis Lend Lease, Legat Architects, Larson Engineering, and Illinois Masonry Corporation. The school district had contracted for work on several schools in the district. The buildings opened in 2004, with defect claims made in 2007. Defect claims included the failure of a retaining wall and need for reinforcement of stairwells. The settlement with Terra Group was made under the agreement that it was a compromise with no concession of liability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked

November 23, 2016 — Evelin Y. Bailey – California Construction Law Blog
Earlier this year we informed you that the federal Department of Labor intended to raise the minimum salary for individuals classified as executive, administrative, and professional (“white collar”) exempt employees. The result? About 4.2 million workers classified as exempt would become eligible for overtime pay on December 1, 2016, the effective date of the new rule. Businesses would need to pay $47,476 starting on December 1, 2016 to maintain the exempt status of workers. However, a combination of business groups and states sued to invalidate the regulation, requesting expedited and emergency injunctive relief. On November 22, 2016, a federal district court in Texas granted the emergency motion for a preliminary injunction barring the DOL from enforcing its new overtime rule. The injunction will remain until the resolution of this legal challenge to the rule. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Evelin Y. Bailey, California Construction Law Blog
Ms. Bailey may be contacted at ebailey@wendel.com

---

Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

October 02, 2015 — David A. Harris & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. (“Vita Planning”), the First Appellate District held California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 410.42 (“Section 410.42”) which prohibits an out-of-state contractor from requiring a California subcontractor to litigate disputes in a state other than California, applies not only to traditional “contractors” and “subcontractors” but also to design professionals and architects. In Vita Planning, a dispute arose when HKS, a Texas based architectural firm, refused to pay Vita Planning and Architecture (“Vita”), a landscape design firm, for work on a luxury hotel in Mammoth Lakes, California (“Project”). HKS contended it was not required to pay Vita until it was paid by the owner of the Project, and any claims regarding the work needed to be filed in Texas pursuant to a forum selection clause contained in a Prime Contract between HKS and the Owner. The forum clause was “incorporated by reference” into an unsigned “standard form” agreement between HKS and Vita. Despite the forum clause, Vita filed a Complaint against HKS in Marin County Superior Court. Reprinted courtesy of Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

September 23, 2019 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Washington State has enacted a new law that means big changes for employers. The new law, in effect on January 1, 2020, will dramatically limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements in our state and imposes tough penalties on employers found to be in violation. While the new law does not take effect for many months, businesses should nonetheless act quickly and before year’s end to evaluate practices and, if necessary, revise existing and future non-compete agreements to ensure compliance. Under the new law, if an employee successfully proves a company’s non-compete agreement is unenforceable, then the employer will be required to pay the greater of $5,000 or an employee’s actual damages, plus the employee’s attorneys’ fees (and its own, in defending the non-compete), expenses and costs incurred in challenging the agreement. Brief Summary of Changes Washington Courts have typically disfavored restrictive covenants but usually enforced a non-competition agreement that protected an employer’s legitimate business interests and was reasonable in scope, geographic reach, and duration. The Legislature halted this trend through passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

---