SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Excess Insurer On The Hook For Cleanup Costs At Seven Industrial Sites

August 28, 2018 — Lorelie S. Masters & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A New York district court has held that an insurer must provide coverage under three excess insurance policies issued in 1970 for defense and cleanup costs incurred by Olin Corporation in remediating environmental contamination at seven sites in Connecticut, Washington, Maryland, Illinois, New York, and Washington. Seven of the remaining sites at issue presented questions of fact for trial, with only one site being dismissed due to lack of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Over a Hundred Thousand Superstorm Sandy Cases Re-Opened

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced yesterday that they will be reopening 144,000 flood insurance claims, reported the New Jersey Law Journal. The announcement comes weeks after reports that “some insurance companies denied thousands of claims after fraudulently altering engineering reports, as well as complaints that insurance companies systematically underpay on claims because they fear a backlash from FEMA.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

November 29, 2021 — Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw - ConsensusDocs
The Miller Act (the “Act”), which requires the prime contractor to furnish a performance bond and a payment bond to the government, protects “all persons supplying labor and materials carrying out the work provided for in the contract.”[1] Despite its broad language, courts have limited the parties who may actually assert a claim under the Act. This article introduces general background of the Act, identifies subcontractors who may qualify for protections under the Act, and suggests ways to preserve the rights as prime contractors. Brief Background of the Miller Act Under the Miller Act, there are two types of bonds the prime contractor furnishes to the government in a federal construction contract of more than $100,000[2] 1. Performance Bond A performance bond protects the United States and guarantees the completion of the project in accordance with the contract’s terms and conditions.[3] This bond must be with a surety that is satisfactory to the officer awarding the contract and in the amount the officer considers adequate for government protection.[4] If a contractor abandons a project or fails to perform, the bond itself will cover the government’s cost of substitute performance. Thus, the performance bond disincentivizes contractors from abandoning projects and provides the government with reassurance that an abandonment will not create delays or additional expenses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw, Fox Rothschild LLP
Ms. McGraw may be contacted at dmcgraw@foxrothschild.com

---

NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics

April 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the National Association of Builders’ (NAHB) publication Eye on Housing, the NAHB examined “the share of homeowners living in single-family detached housing” statistics as reported in the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS). Wausau, Wisconsin had the highest share of homeowners living in single-family detached housing within a metropolitan area. Interestingly, NAHB found that “[w]ith the exception of Modesto, CA, all of the metropolitan areas in the top ten [were] located in the Midwest.” The New York-White Plains-Wayne (New York) division had the lowest share of homeowners living in single-detached housing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Is Your Business Insured for the Coronavirus?

March 16, 2020 — J. Kelby Van Patten & Jared De Jong - Payne & Fears
How bad will the pandemic get? How much will it spread in the United States? Will we develop a vaccine in time to do any good? As insurance lawyers, we have no idea. But we can help you figure out whether your business is insured for the coronavirus risks that keep business owners up at night. Risk 1: An outbreak forces my business to close until the outbreak ends. Are my financial business losses covered? Maybe. Many commercial property policies provide “business interruption coverage” which may apply. This coverage typically requires that: (i) Your business is shut down. If your business actually closes for a period of time, you may meet this requirement. However, you wouldn’t meet it if your business slows because half of your staff is home sick. (ii) The shutdown is necessary. “Necessary” means something different than “desirable” or “prudent.” Whether a shutdown is necessary depends on the facts. If it is physically or legally impossible to enter your building, then closure is necessary. But if the government issues a public advisory recommending that businesses close, and you voluntarily comply, that’s a different story. (iii) The shutdown is caused by physical damage to your property. Is a viral outbreak “damage” to your property? There’s not a clear answer. On the one hand, courts have found that hazardous contamination of a building constitutes property damage to the building. For example, asbestos incorporated into a building constitutes property damage to the building under a commercial general liability policy. Environmental contamination can also constitute property damage to the contaminated property. Policyholders whose businesses close during an outbreak will argue that property contaminated by the virus satisfies the “physical damage to property” requirement. On the other hand, insurers may argue that the real cause of the shutdown is not the contaminated building surfaces, but the need for social distancing in a neighborhood with many contagious people. Coverage will depend on the policy language and the details of the shutdown. Reprinted courtesy of J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & Fears and Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears Mr. Van may be contacted at kvp@paynefears.com Mr. Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

January 06, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The federal district court ultimately stayed a construction defect case, but offered comments on the current status of coverage disputes for such defects in Hawaii. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Simpson Mfg. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128481(D. Haw. Nov. 7, 2011).

National Union filed a complaint for declaratory relief to establish it had no duty to defend or to indemnify Simpson Manufacturing Company in four actions pending in the Hawaii state courts. The state court actions concerned allegedly defective hurricane strap tie hold downs that were manufactured and sold by Simpson. The hurricane ties allegedly began to prematurely corrode and rust, causing cracking, spalling and other damage to homes.

National Union contended the underlying allegations did not constitute "property damage" caused by an "occurrence," as defined in the policies.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Case Remanded for Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

November 06, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeals remanded the case after the insured was awarded an $8 million dollar judgment against its property insurer for hurricane and other damage to a home. Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Sebo, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14799 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2013). Sebo purchased his home in April 2005, when it was four years old. It was insured under a manuscript policy issued by AHAC for $8 million. The all-risk policy covered rain, but excluded damage caused by faulty, inadequate or defective planning. After Sebo bought the home, water leaks were noticed. Sebo believed that the house suffered from major design and construction defects. In October 2005, Hurricane Wilma struck and further damaged the home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation

November 23, 2020 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of DeLuca v. RLI Insurance Company, 2020 WL 5931054 (October 7, 2020), the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department held that RLI had a duty to pay a judgment obtained by an underlying plaintiff against RLI’s insured, MLSC. The underlying plaintiff brought the action directly against the carrier after obtaining a judgment against MLSC, and when the judgment remained unsatisfied, serving RLI with the judgment. As an initial matter, the court found that the direct action by the plaintiff was proper under New York Insurance Law 3420(a), which allows for an injured plaintiff to maintain a direct action against a carrier if a judgment against that carrier’s insured remains unsatisfied for a period of 30 days and the carrier is served with that judgment. In that event, the plaintiff steps into the shoes of the insured and is entitled to the rights of the insured (and is also subject to the carrier’s coverage defenses). Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---