SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

January 08, 2024 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Strategist
In Okla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Omega Flex, Inc., No. CIV-22-18-D, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197755, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (the District Court) determined spoliation sanctions were not warranted after a home was demolished for repair following a joint scene examination. The insurer, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer) provided a policy of insurance to Michael and Sondra Diel (the Diels). On July 11, 2020, the Diels’ home was struck by lightning and their attic caught fire. Following the loss, Insurer retained both counsel and fire origin and cause experts to inspect the Diels’ property. Insurer’s counsel informed in-house counsel for Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) via a letter dated July 14, 2020, that a preliminary investigation indicated the fire may have been caused by an Omega Flex product—specifically, TracPipe Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing (CSST). Insurer’s counsel invited Omega Flex to inspect the property, noting: “It is anticipated that the loss will exceed $300,000” and stating that any inspection “must be completed during the next two weeks. At that time, the homeowner will proceed with demolition to rebuild.” (Emphasis added). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Common Law Indemnification - A Primer

April 12, 2021 — Brian F. Mark - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
“Common law indemnification is generally available ‘in favor of one who is held responsible solely by operation of law because of his relationship to the wrongdoer.’” McCarthy v. Turner Constr., Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 369, 375 (2011), quoting Mas v. Two Bridges Assocs., 75 N.Y.2d 680, 690 (1990). What is Common Law Indemnification and Who Can Assert it? Indemnification, in general terms, is the right of one party to shift a loss to another and may be based upon an express contract or an implied obligation. Bellevue S. Assoc. v. HRH Constr. Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 282 (1991). Based on a separate duty owed the indemnitee by the indemnitor, common law indemnification, or implied indemnification, permits one who was compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages paid to the injured party. D’Ambrosio v. City of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 454, 460 (1982); Curreri v. Heritage Prop. Inv. Trust, Inc., 48 A.D.3d 505, 507 (2d Dept. 2008). The premise of common law indemnification is vicarious liability, defined as “liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) based on the relationship between the two parties” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Common law indemnification “reflects an inherent fairness as to which party should be held liable for indemnity.” McCarthy, 17 N.Y.3d at 375. It is a restitution concept which permits shifting the loss because, to fail to do so, would result in the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other. Mas, 75 N.Y.2d at 680, 690; Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center v. Islam, 172 A.D.3d 1342, 1343 (2d Dept. 2019). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian F. Mark, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
Mr. Mark may be contacted at bfm@hurwitzfine.com

---

Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Eleventh District of the US Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Nix v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. In this case, the Nixes filed a claim after a portion of the retaining wall in their home collapsed and their basement flooded. State Farm denied the claim “on the ground that the policy excluded coverage for collapses caused by defects in construction and for damage caused by groundwater.”

The court reviewed the Nixes’ policy and found that State Farm’s statement did specifically exclude both of these items. In reviewing the lower court’s ruling, the appeals court noted that State Farm’s expert witness, Mark Voll, determined that the retaining wall “lacked reinforcing steel, as required by a local building code, and could not withstand the pressure created by groundwater that had accumulated during a heavy rainfall.” Additionally, a french drain had been covered with clay soil and so had failed to disperse the groundwater.

The Nixes argued that the flooding was due to a main line water pipe, but their opinions were those of Terry Nix and the contractor who made temporary repairs to the wall. “Those opinions were not admissible as lay testimony. Neither Nix nor the contractor witnessed the wall collapse or had personal knowledge about the construction of the Nixes’ home.”

The lower court granted a summary judgment to State Farm which has been upheld by the appeals court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Grenfell Fire Probe Faults Construction Industry Practices

November 28, 2022 — Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record
"Incompetence and poor practices in the construction industry" and among others led to the June 2017 fire at London's Grenfell residential high-rise building, causing 72 deaths, according to the lead counsel for the public inquiry that ended Nov. 10. Reprinted courtesy of Peter Reina, Engineering News-Record Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Delaware State Court Holds that Defective Workmanship Claims do not Trigger Coverage by a Builder’s Commercial General Liability Policy

April 15, 2015 — Marc S. Casarino – White and Williams LLP
Guided by federal case law, on March 31, 2015 a Delaware state court held for the first time in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Miranda & Hardt Contracting and Building Services LLC that a builder’s poor workmanship is not an occurrence for which the builder’s insurance policy affords coverage. In the underlying case giving rise to the coverage dispute, a homeowner alleged that a builder deviated from approved building plans, used inadequate materials, improperly installed materials, violated building codes, and fraudulently represented that a home was properly constructed. The homeowner sued the builder under theories of negligence, negligence per se, and fraud. The insurer denied the builder’s request for defense and indemnification for the homeowner’s claims, citing in part that the allegations of defective workmanship did not qualify as an “occurrence” as defined by the builder’s insurance policy. The builder did not dispute that the underlying complaint alleged defective workmanship. However, the builder asserted that because it had not yet been proven that its work was defective, the insurer had prematurely denied coverage. The court properly rejected the builder’s argument, and reiterated that under Delaware law the court must compare the allegations of the complaint to the insurance policy terms to make a coverage determination. Whether the complaint’s allegations are ultimately meritorious is irrelevant to the initial coverage determination according to the court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com

---

No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

March 12, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
Colorado’s new procedure for interlocutory appeals has its limits. In the recent decision of Rich v. Ball Ranch Partnership, ___ P.3d ___, 2014 COA 6 (2015), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that Appellate Rule 4.2 does not permit interlocutory review of questions of law in “garden-variety” or “run-of-the-mill” contract disputes. This resolves a subtle question that has been lingering since Colorado first created the interlocutory appeal process four years ago. Prior to 2011, Colorado did not permit civil litigants to seek appellate review prior to final judgment, except in a small handful of situations. As I discussed in an article at the time, this changed with the passage of C.R.S. § 13-4-102.1 and the adoption of Rule 4.2, which granted the court of appeals discretion to permit the immediate appeal of certain district court orders. These provisions allowed parties to seek interlocutory review of orders before the conclusion of a case if a district court could certify that (1) immediate review might promote a more orderly disposition or establish a final disposition of the litigation, and (2) the order involved a controlling and unresolved question of law. The rule was patterned after 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides similar relief in the federal courts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com

---

No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law

January 13, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found there was no coverage for the insured contractor under Arkansas law when sued for construction defects by two homeowners. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hambuchen Constr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160364 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2016). In one case, the Pierces hired Hambuchen, the insured contractor for the construction of a new home, which was completed in 2006. Two years after moving in, the Pierces experienced water leaks at various locations inside the home and the basement flooded. Water damage rendered the back deck unstable. In 2010 and 2011, Hambuchen made repairs to stop leaks on the decks, but in 2012 the back deck again showed signs of water damage. The Pierces sued, and Auto-Owners provided a defense under a reservation of rights. In the second case, the Lessmanns hired Hambuchen in 2005 as general contractor to construct their new home. Following completion of the home, the Lessmanns complained about scratched windows. The Lessmanns filed suit against Hambuchen for breach of the construction contract by failing to build their home in a workmanlike manner. The Lessmanns filed suit in May 2009. Auto-Owners was not aware of the suit until 2015 when it received notice that the Lessmanns had filed an amended complaint. The Lessmans' suit went to trial and Hambuchen prevailed. 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

---

OSHA Penalties—What Happened with International Nutrition

April 15, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
For those of you in and around Omaha, you recall the tragic collapse of International Nutrition’s plant in early 2014, killing two workers and injuring several others. OSHA swept onto the scene and issued citations. Surprisingly, the penalties totaled only $120,000. While a large sum, one would think two deaths and a score of injuries would generate a larger fine. International Nutrition appealed the penalties and they have now been reduced to $78,000, about a 1/3 reduction. Below, I’ll set forth what happened. The Original Penalties International Nutrition was originally fined $120,650.00 for citations ranging from willful, serious, to other-than-serious. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---