SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

CSLB Releases New Forms and Announces New Fees!

April 05, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The California Contractors State License Board (CSLB”) has issued new application forms. Effective May 1, 2017, the CSLB will only accept forms with a revision date of October 2017 (Pro tip: see bottom of form to verify it indicates a revision date of “10/16” or later). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Surplus Lines Carriers Cannot Compel Arbitration in Louisiana

May 29, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the surplus lines insurer's motion to compel arbitration based on Lousiana's law prohibiting arbitrations of coverage disputes. Fairway Village Condominiums v. Independent Spec. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62135 (E.D. La. April 20, 2023). The plaintiff's condominium complex was damaged by Hurricane Ida. A claim was filed with the insurer. The insurer made an initial advance payment of $200,000. Three additional payments were made bringing the total to $951,462.49, which was less than half of the proof of loss amounts submitted by plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith. The insurer filed a motion to compel arbitration based upon an arbitration provision in the policy. Recognizing that Louisiana law prohibited enforcement of a policy's arbitration clause, the insurer argued it did not apply because it was a surplus lines carrier. 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

---

The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict on the Insurance Industry, Part One: Coverage, Exposure, and Losses

August 22, 2022 — Michael Kopit - Lewis Brisbois
(August 10, 2022) - The Russia-Ukraine conflict has far-reaching implications for the insurance industry and for insurers and insureds alike. Many corporate policy holders around the world have withdrawn or scaled back operations with Russia and/or Russian-based corporations. In doing so, the corporate policy holders left behind property, assets, and inventory in Russia and/or suffered losses in revenue. Corporate policy holders are looking to their insurers to offset the losses. It is estimated that the insurance and reinsurance markets could face losses at nearly $20 billion. S&P Global predicts that losses could reach $35 billion. Additionally, the conflict in Ukraine creates uncertainty for insurers on how to navigate the influx of claims, especially from the cybersecurity sector. A key issue with the rise in claims is coverage. The general rule is that coverage under a policy for any loss must be evaluated by considering the policy language, the law applicable to the governing jurisdiction, and the facts surrounding the loss. Many policies contain a “war exclusion” clause, which can exclude property losses resulting from acts of war or governmental instability. However, corporate policy holders may have Political Risk Insurance, which can provide coverage for losses for items such as damaged property, seized property, and lost assets at a time of political turmoil or war. Even if a policy has Political Risk Insurance, it does not guarantee payout. Careful analysis of the policy language and facts surrounding the loss must still take place. For example, in the event of property claims, an insurer must still determine whether the loss is related to the conflict and/or whether the subject property was voluntarily abandoned or seized. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Kopit, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Kopit may be contacted at Michael.Kopit@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Thomas G. Cronin of Gordon & Rees LLP (published in Association of Corporate Counsel), “[i]n 15th Place Condominium Association v. South Campus Development Team LLC, the Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois held that a claim for breach of an express indemnity clause within a construction agreement was subject to the 10-year statute of limitations for written contracts instead of the four-year statute of limitations for construction claims.” In 2008, the condo association sued the developer alleging “it had discovered latent design and construction defects in the condominium towers. In 2011, the developer filed a third-party complaint against the general contractor alleging breach of express indemnity.” While the general contractor prevailed in the first trial, the appellate court reversed the decision, “concluding that the nature of the developer’s express indemnity claim against the general contractor related to the failure to indemnify rather than to a construction-related activity.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Drones, Googleplexes and Hyperloops

March 05, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I don’t know if it’s just me, or if there has been a lot of news lately about technology and construction:

Although flying in the face of some bad press recently, the use of drones in construction. And we’re talking about more than just cameras with propellers.

Battle of the (tech) Titans, as Google battles it out with the likes of LinkedIn and Microsoft for development rights in Mountain View, California for its futuristic new Googleplex. And we’re talking about more than just cameras with propellers.. And Google is only the most recent tech titan with development plans. Facebook’s Frank Gehry-designed campus expansion is in the works and Apple’s “spaceship” campus has already broken ground. We’ve come a long way since the HP garage in Palo Alto, baby!

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Consider Manner In Which Loan Agreement (Promissory Note) Is Drafted

March 02, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Consider who you loan money too and, perhaps more importantly, the manner in which your loan agreements (promissory notes) are drafted. By way of example, in what appears to be a failed construction project in Conrad FLB Management, LLC v. Diamond Blue International, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2897a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), a group of lenders lent money to a limited liability company (“Company”) in connection with the development of a project. Promissory notes were executed by Company and executed by its managing member as a representative of Company, and not in a personal capacity. Company, however, did not own the project. Rather, an affiliated entity owned the project (“Affiliated Entity”). Affiliated Entity had the same managing member as Company. Once the Company received the loan proceeds, it transferred the money to Affiliated Entity, presumably for purposes of the project. The loans were not repaid and the lenders sued Company, Affiliated Entity, and its managing member, in a personal capacity. The lenders claimed they were all jointly liable under the promissory notes. Although the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the lenders, this was reversed on appeal as to the Affiliated Entity and the managing member because there was a factual issue as to whether they should be bound by the note executed on behalf of Company. First, Florida Statute s. 673.4011(1) provides that “a person is not liable on a promissory note unless either (a) the person signed the note, or (b) the person is represented by an agent who signed the note.” Conrad FLB Management, LLC, supra. Affiliated Entity is a separate entity and did not execute the note. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

December 06, 2021 — Patricia B. Santelle & Frank J. Perch, III - White and Williams LLP
A recent New York federal district court decision addresses a number of issues in the context of asbestos coverage involving an insolvent insured, holding that policy buyout agreements between the insured and its insurers did not bar actions by certain tort judgment creditors against some of the settling insurers, and further finding that such agreements can constitute fraudulent conveyances, especially where the proceeds of the settlement are not reserved for payment of insured claims. In the litigation pending in the Western District of New York (Mineweaser v. One Beacon Insurance Company, et al., No. 14-CV-0585A), certain asbestos plaintiffs sought recovery from excess insurers for judgments obtained against an insolvent asbestos supplier (Hedman Resources, formerly known as Hedman Mines), which ceased operations in 2007 due to insolvency. Hedman had at one time been a subsidiary of Gulf & Western. As of 2009-2011, the excess insurers of Gulf & Western were advised of exhaustion of primary insurance as well as Hedman’s insolvency. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough

June 29, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed why contractors need to incorporate previously here at Construction Law Musings. Among the many reasons to incorporate are possible tax benefits and the protection of personal assets (like your house and your dog) from judgement and collection actions. This latter reason is key in the construction world in which Murphy can look like an optimist and projects have so many moving parts that something is likely to go wrong. The reason incorporation works as at least a partial shield is that the company and the owners are separate “people” or entities from a legal perspective and a contract with one “person” cannot be enforced against another. This same logic applies in the context of corporate versus individual actions, i. e. the actions of one person cannot be legally attributed to another person. By extension the assets of an individual cannot be collected to satisfy a purely corporate debt or judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---