SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Flood Sublimits Do Not Apply to Loss Caused by Named Windstorm

May 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Jersey Superior Court considered whether recovery for storm surge was limited by the policy's sublimit for loss caused by flood. Public Serv. Enter. Group, Inc. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2015 N. J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 620 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. March 23, 2015). Storm surge from Superstorm Sandy inundated and damaged Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.'s (PSEG) property, including eight large generating stations. PSEG had coverage of $1 billion under policies with defendant carriers. There was no sublimit in the policies for "named windstorms," other than named windstorms in Florida. A $250 million sublimit appeared in the policies for losses caused by "flood." The carriers paid only a portion of PSEG's claim. The total damages exceeded $500 million. 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

---

Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

October 21, 2019 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
My advice to home builders has long been to arbitrate construction defect claims instead of litigating them in front of juries. Based on my experience and watching others litigate claims, I have learned that home builders usually fare better in arbitration than in jury trials, both in terms of what they have to pay the homeowners or HOAs and also in what they recover from subcontractors and design professionals. Because of these dynamics, conventional wisdom has been that builders should arbitrate construction defect claims. For several reasons, I am now questioning whether the time is right to consider a third option. First, plaintiffs’ attorneys dislike arbitration and will continue their attempts to do away with arbitration for construction defect claims. In 2018, the Colorado Legislature considered HB 18-1261 and HB 18-1262. While both bills were ultimately killed, they showed the plaintiffs’ attorneys disdain for arbitration, and serve as a warning that attempts to prevent arbitration legislatively will continue. If the legislature does away with the ability to arbitrate construction defect claims, and that is the only means of dispute resolution contained in a builder’s contracts, that builder may find itself in front of a jury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Use of Dispute Review Boards in the Construction Process

December 27, 2021 — Sarah B. Biser - ConsensusDocs
Dispute Review Boards: Overview Problems, disagreements and claims arise in most large and complex construction projects regardless of the project delivery method. These disputes can and do delay and significantly increase the cost of the project. Dispute Review Boards, also known as Dispute Resolution Board, Dispute Board, Dispute Avoidance Board or DRB, are often found in large construction projects to assist the parties to minimize, resolve or avoid disputes and mitigate adverse impacts to projects. To date, over $270 billion worth of construction projects have used the dispute review board process to avoid numerous disputes and achieve significant savings.[1] Unlike mediation and arbitration, a DRB is convened at the very beginning of the project and conducts regular meetings and visits at the project site throughout, allowing the DRB to discuss, observe and monitor construction, progress and potential disputes. At these meetings, DRB members become familiar with many of the facts and acquaint themselves with the job site personnel. If a dispute is submitted to them, the panelists have a great deal of knowledge about the circumstances of the problem to aid them in reaching their recommendations or conclusions. DRBs also encourage open and honest communications among or between the parties during the project, which in turn, encourages avoidance or resolution of disputes before they become formal claims. In short, the DRP process involves real-time discussion of the dispute with highly qualified people who know the particular project from day one and can provide recommendations on how to resolve disputes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP
Ms. Biser may be contacted at sbiser@foxrothschild.com

---

Another Reason to Always Respond (or Hensel Phelps Wins One!)

September 16, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, Hensel Phelps Construction Co. is best known as the company that got whipsawed between indemnity rules and the lack of a statute of limitations for state agencies. However a recent case out of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave them a win and illustrates, once again, that failing to appear or respond is never a good option. In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Perdomo Industrial LLC, the Alexandria, VA federal court looked at an arbitration award entered for Hensel Phelps and against Perdomo under the Federal Arbitration Act. The facts of the case showed that Perdomo “double dipped” into the deep end of refusal or failure to respond. First of all, the contract required arbitration and any award was enforceable in any state or federal court having jurisdiction. Based upon this language, Hensel Phelps filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against Perdomo and its surety, AAA sent notice to both Perdomo and Surety, and. . . neither responded or appeared at what was ultimately 8 days of hearings. After hearing Hensel Phelp’s evidence and the total lack of defenses from Perdomo and Surety, the panel issued an award in favor of Hensel Phelps, finding Perdomo LLC in default and holding Perdomo LLC and Allied World jointly and severally liable in the amount of $2,958,209.71 and Perdomo LLC individually liable in the amount of $7,917,666.30 plus interest. 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

---

Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

July 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Acting on the case of Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona’s eight-year statute of repose applies. The case was referred to the court by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which had asked for a clarification of Arizona law. The case focused on three questions:



1. Does the filing of a motion for class certification in an Arizona court toll the statute of limitations for individuals, who are included within the class, to file individual causes of action involving the same defendants and the same subject matter?2. If so, does this class-action tolling doctrine apply to statutes of repose, and more specifically, to the statute of repose for construction defects set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 12-552?3. If the doctrine applies to statutes of repose, and specifically § 12-552, may a court weigh the equities of the case in determining whether, and to what extent, an action is tolled?



The litigation at hand has a lengthy history, starting with a case referred to as “Hoffman” in 2003. The Albano plaintiffs were not able to join in Hoffman, and they filed their own lawsuit in 2006. An additional lawsuit was filed by the Albano plaintiffs in 2007. The courts decided that the Albano plaintiffs’ lawsuit was untimely.



The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the statute of repose was the appropriate standard for this case. They noted that “the eight-year statute of repose period began to run on November 6, 1997, the date of the Town of Gilbert’s final inspection. Albano II was filed on November 5, 2007.”



The court found that the plaintiffs had waited too long for start their suit. As a result, they found it unnecessary to answer the first or third questions. Justice A. John Pelander of the Arizona Supreme Court wrote the opinion, dated June 30, 2011.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Ensuing Loss Provision Salvages Coverage for Water Damage Claim

September 16, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's finding of no coverage and found that the ensuing loss provision provided coverage for water damage. 3524 East Cap Venture, LLC, et al. v. Weschester Fire Ins. Co., et al., 104 F. 4th 193 (D.C. Cir. 2024). Plaintiff 3534 East Cap Venture, LLC, a real-estate developer, hired plaintiff McCullough Construction, LLC, to build a residential and retail complex. Defendants Westchester Fire Insurance Company and Endurance American Insurance Company issued identical builders' risk policies, which covered the building while it was under construction. Each insurer was responsible for half of any qualifying losses. The policies covered loss caused by or resulting from water damage. The policies, however, excluded loss caused by "dampness of atmosphere" or by "[e]xtremes or changes in temperature." But the exclusions contained an exception if "loss by an insured peril ensues." 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

---

Trial Date Discussed for Las Vegas HOA Takeover Case

February 04, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Jeff German of the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Justice Department attorneys filed papers January 28th demanding the trial involving 11 defendants charged in a scheme to take over the Las Vegas Valley homeowners associations to be held no later than September 2nd. The prosecutors claimed “they have gone out of their way to ease the burden on the defense as they have turned over mountains of evidence in the past year.” However, the defense attorneys allege that they need “at least a year and likely more time” to go through the “more than 3 million pages of documents” and to create a trial strategy, according to German. The defense “asked for an initial late January 2015 trial date.” The case involves charges against “lawyers, former police officers and corrupt board members” for “packing HOA boards to gain legal and construction defect contracts for themselves.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer

November 02, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The economic loss rule lives to bar a claim against a product manufacturer in a real estate transaction. In a products liability action, there needs to be personal injury or property damage, other than to the property itself, in order to recover economic damages. Otherwise, the economic loss rule will bar the recovery of such economic losses when the economic losses deal to the product itself. This is important to keep in mind in any product liability action against a manufacturer. In a recent case, 2711 Hollywood Beach Condominium Assoc’n, Inc., v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2179a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a condominium association purchased the condominium from the developer. Subsequently, it noticed leaks with the fire suppression system in the condominium and sued multiple parties for damages for repairs due to the leaks and the replacement of the fire suppression system. One of the parties sued in negligence and strict liability was a manufacturer of pipe fittings used in the fire suppression system. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule and relying on the 1993 Florida Supreme Court opinion in Casa Clara Condominium Assoc’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993), holding “the economic loss rule limited a defendant’s tort liability for allegedly defective products to injuries caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself.” 2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra. The trial court agreed with the manufacturer and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Third District affirmed based on the economic loss rule:

The Association bargained for, purchased and received a building; [the manufactuer’s] fittings were only a component of the FSS [fire suppression system], incorporated into the building. Applying the rule set forth in Casa Clara, the Association purchased a completed building from the developer. [The manufactuer’s] fittings were “an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure ‘other’ property.” Injury to the building itself is not injury to “other” property because the product purchased by the Association was the building. See Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1247. The economic loss rule therefore bars the Association’s recovery as to [the manufacturer] to the extent that it sought damages to replace the FSS [fire suppression system] and repair damage to the building.

2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra (internal citations omitted).

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

---