Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

October 21, 2019 — David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement Blog
In prior blog posts, we addressed Georgia’s anti-indemnity statute. One of the posts addressed the statute in the context of an electric utility easement near an airport. That case made its way to the Supreme Court Georgia, which provided some additional clarity to the statute. Milliken & Co. v. Georgia Power Co., — Ga. –, 829 S.E.2d 111 (2019). When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Milliken”), based on claims that transmission lines on Milliken’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Milliken cross claimed against Georgia Power Company (“GPC”). Milliken’s claim was based on an easement it granted to GPC, which required GPC to indemnify it for any claims arising out of GPC’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the clause was unenforceable under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b). In general, “a party may contract away liability to the other party for the consequences of his own negligence without contravening public policy, except when such agreement it prohibited by statute.” Id. at 113 citing Lanier at McEver v. Planners & Eng’rs Collaborative, 284 Ga. 204, 205 (2008). As one such statute, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b) applies when an indemnification provision (i) “relates in some way to a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of certain property” and (ii) “promises to indemnify a party for damages arising from that own party’s sole negligence.” Id. at 114 (internal punctuation omitted). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Critical Updates in Builders Risk Claim Recovery: Staying Ahead of the "Satisfactory State" Argument and Getting the Most Out of LEG 3

December 11, 2023 — Gregory D. Podolak & Cheryl L. Kozdrey - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Builders risk claims routinely involve complicated and aggressive debate about the interplay between covered physical loss and uncovered faulty work. However, denials on this front have recently experienced a noticeable uptick in frequency, creativity, and aggressiveness. The insurer arguments concentrate in two key areas with a common theme – that any damage associated with a construction defect is not covered:

Defective construction does not qualify as a “physical” loss to trigger the insuring agreement; and
Any natural results of defective construction are excluded as faulty workmanship, even with favorable LEG 3 or similar language.

Neither of these arguments should impede access to coverage in the majority of scenarios. To ensure as much, it is incumbent on the savvy policyholder to understand the insurer tactics, be prepared to spot them early, and have thoughtful counter positions at the ready to address them decisively. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Cheryl L. Kozdrey, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at GPodolak@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kozdrey may be contacted at CKozdrey@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle

December 20, 2017 — Dave Suggs - CDJ STAFF
Seattle Washington is experiencing a shortage of in-city condos. Of the 27,000 units of new housing being built in downtown Seattle, 94 percent will be rentals. As housing prices are rising in the US’s fastest-growing large city, the median home price is $660,000. Dean Jones of the Seattle Magazine reports on why consumers consider condos, but home developers don’t in his article “The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle.” Reason 1, condominiums don’t always offer high returns and can be riskier for the home developer. Reason 2, the Washington State Condo Act “overprotects” buyers of condos with over-the-top warranties that makes everyone in the industry afraid to work with condos. Reason 3, the cost of condo building is increased because of the risk of defect litigation. Reason 4, condo presale buyers are not required to deposit a percentage to invest in a new development and before closing could decide to walk away. Reason 5, there is a lot of interest in apartment buildings from investment groups. Reason 6, investors whose goal is to own “trophy” assets in rising markets can’t wait the years it takes developers to plan and construct a new multistory community. Reason 7, since rent prices have risen 50 percent on average in the last 7 years, it’s profitable to be a landlord. Reason 8, the millennials who live and work in this tech oriented region prefer to rent because of living through the rise and fall of the housing market. Reason 9, the costs is rising each year to deliver new projects. Reason 10, high-rise zoning was adopted 2 years before the recession, so just as condo development was gearing up, apartment building took over. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

March 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing its prior decision, the New York Court of Appeals held that the insurer could raise policy exclusions regarding its duty to indemnify after it incorrectly denied its duty to defend. K2 Invest. Group, LLC v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 201 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2014). The insured was sued for legal malpractice. His insurer, American Guarantee, refused to defend and a default judgment was entered. The insured assigned his rights against American Guarantee to the plaintiffs. When the underlying plaintiffs sued, American Guarantee said coverage was barred by two exclusions. In a previous decision, K2 Inv. Group, LLC v. Am Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 21 NY 3d 284, the court held that American Guarantee's breach of its duty to defend prevented it from relying on policy exclusions. This, however, contradicted another case issued by the court, Servidone Const. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 N.Y 2d 419 (1985). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

November 17, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the duty to defend in long latency disease cases should be prorated between the insurer and insured when the policies cover for only a portion of the time in which the exposure occurred. Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 2016 La. LEXIS 1675 (La. Sept. 7, 2016). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord

October 17, 2022 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In J&J Fish on Ctr. Str., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-644-bhl, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16361, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (District Court) recognized that “[t]here will be no further fish fries on Center Street until someone pays to repair the collapsed floor at J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. (J&J Fish).” The contenders were: 1) J&J Fish; 2) its’ insurer, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Insurer); and 3) J&J Fish’s landlord, Vision Land, LLC (Vision). Recognizing Insurer’s right to subrogate against Vision based on the terms of the parties’ lease, the District Court held Insurer owed J&J Fish coverage for the losses it sustained, but that Insurer could subrogate against Vision for anything it had to pay J&J Fish. In J&J Fish, Vision and J&J Fish signed a lease (Lease) for a building (the Building) located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Lease required Vision to “purchase and keep in full force and effect on the building(s) . . . insurance against fire and such other risks as may be included in all-risks policies . . .” Vision, however, never obtained any insurance on the Building. Pursuant to the Lease, Vision also agreed to “maintain and repair the structure including the slab floor and exterior walls of the Premises.” With respect to J&J Fish, the Lease required J&J Fish to maintain “Physical Damage insurance, including but not limited to fire . . . and all other risks of direct physical loss as insured . . . for the full replacement cost of all additions, improvements (including leasehold improvements) and alterations to the Premises.” J&J Fish purchased a commercial property and casualty insurance policy (the Policy) from Insurer. The Policy covered “additions, improvements . . . and alterations” as the Lease required. In addition, it insured the Building itself against “collapse,” subject to certain exceptions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

October 11, 2017 — Christian Singewald, Wesley Payne & Jonathan Woy - White and Williams LLP
Lawsuits against talcum powder manufacturers have recently made headlines for the multimillion dollar verdicts returned in favor of plaintiffs with ovarian cancer. However, lawsuits brought by individuals with mesothelioma who did not work in occupations traditionally associated with asbestos exposure represent another potential liability for talcum powder manufacturers and retailers. In such cases, expert testimony linking mesothelioma to trace amounts of asbestos in talcum powder should be carefully scrutinized. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Christian Singewald, Wesley Payne and Jonathan Woy Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Payne may be contacted at paynew@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Woy may be contacted at woyj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Indeed, You Just Design ‘Em”

April 29, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Seeking to be extracted from personal injury litigation initiated by a laborer on a project in New Orleans, an architect sued for negligence filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff had “testified in his deposition that after demolishing most of one of the side walls of the vault and a smaller section of the front wall, he was instructed to stand on top of the vault's concrete ceiling in order to demolish it with a hydraulic jackhammer.” One court noted that: “Shortly after beginning that task, the entire vault structure collapsed.” Claims against the architect included assertions of “failure to monitor and supervise the execution of the plans to ensure safety at the jobsite.” The architect urged in support of its MSJ that it did not owe a duty to oversee, supervise, or maintain the construction site, or have any responsibility for the plaintiff’s safety. Summary judgment was granted to the architect by the trial court, and an appeal ensued, whereupon the appellate court reversed. That intermediate court found that potential intervening knowledge of the architect of a potentially unsafe demolition practice created an issue of material fact. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES