SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Ex-San Francisco DPW Director Sentenced to Seven Years in Corruption Case

September 26, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A federal judge sentenced Mohammed Nuru, the former San Francisco public works director, to seven years in prison for bribery and kickbacks. Nuru, 59, pleaded guilty to the charge of defrauding the public of its right to honest services earlier this year amid a federal investigation into public corruption in San Francisco’s government. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

December 20, 2017 — Bethany Barrese & Samantha Martino - Case Alert Blog
On November 20th, the New York Court of Appeals reinstated a case seeking more than six million dollars in damages against the insurers for DHL Worldwide Express Inc. (“DHL”), originating from a fatal head-on car crash between Claudia Carlson and a truck owned by MVP Delivery and Logistics Inc. (“MVP”), a DHL contractor. The truck, which bore DHL’s logo, was owned by MVP and driven by an MVP employee. The MVP employee was running an errand unrelated to his job at the time of the accident. Mrs. Carlson’s husband sued the employee, DHL, and MVP. The jury award of $20 million was reduced to $7.3 million by the Appellate Division. MVP’s insurer paid Mr. Carlson just over $1 million, and the employee assigned his rights to any other insurance coverage to Mr. Carlson Mr. Carlson sued DHL and its insurers, seeking the balance of the outstanding judgment pursuant to New York Insurance Law § 3420. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss Mr. Carlson’s claims, which dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division on the basis that § 3420 did not apply since the policies in question were not “issued or delivered” in New York; they had been issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and Florida. The Court of Appeals was subsequently presented with two questions: (1) whether the DHL policies fell within the purview of Insurance Law § 3420 as policies “issued or delivered” in New York; and (2) whether MVP was an “insured” pursuant to the “hired auto” provisions of DHL’s policies. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case

June 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Back in April of this year, a seven-year old boy was electrocuted while swimming in his family’s pool in North Miami, Florida, according to CBS Miami. Now, the family is suing four companies in a wrongful death suit. The complaint claims that the victim “was electrocuted due to a faulty pool light and electrical grounding and bonding on the pool’s lighting system.” Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc., manufactured and designed the pool light. Florida Pool & Spa Center “provided periodic cleaning, maintenance and inspections of the pool,” while Gary B Electric and Construction Consultant is being sued for “improper bonding and grounding.” Also, Jorge Perez Enterprises Inspection Company is listed in the lawsuit since they conducted the inspection when the family purchased the home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

August 01, 2023 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
In a recent case—United States ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland (“Dickson”)—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently re-examined and defined what work qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. United States ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, No. 21-160, 67 F.4th 182 (4th Cir. April 26, 2023) (slip op.). Unlike private projects, unpaid subcontractors cannot encumber the federal government’s property with mechanics liens. Instead, the Miller Act provides a remedy for subcontractors in the form of a payment bond on all federal public works contracts exceeding $100,000. 40 U.S.C. § 3131(b). In the Dickson case, Claimant Elliot Dickson served as a subcontractor to Forney Enterprises (“Forney”), with whom the Department of Defense (the “DOD”) contracted to renovate several staircases and the fire suppression systems at the Pentagon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Conway & Mrowiec Attorneys LLLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bjw@cmcontractors.com

---

Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

January 21, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court as follows:

Under Washington law, is an insurer bound by representations made by its authorized agent in a certificate of insurance with respect to a party's status as an additional insured under a policy issued by the insurer, when the certificate includes language disclaiming its authority and ability to expand coverage?

T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co lf Am., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31863 (9th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018). In 2010, T-Mobile entered into a Field Services Agreement (FSA) with Innovative Engineering, Inc. under which Innovative would provide services in connection with the construction of rooftop cellular antennae towers in New York City. The FSA required Innovative to maintain general liability insurance naming T-Mobile as an additional insured, and required that Innovative provide T-Mobile with certificates of insurance documenting the coverage. Innovative obtained coverage from Selective Insurance Company of America. 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

---

Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

September 04, 2018 — Brian Bassett - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In Lexington Ins. Co. v. Chi. Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135871, 2018 WL 3819109 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that rip-and-tear costs could qualify as covered “property damage,” but the court rejected coverage for claims that the insured intentionally sold a noncompliant product as the suit did not allege an “occurrence.” Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) issued a CGL policy to Chicago Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp. (“Flameproof”). During the policy period, a third party ordered fire-retardant-treated lumber from Flameproof for construction in Minnesota. Flameproof instead sent materials that were not tested, certified, or labeled as compliant. The third party installed the materials, discovered the non-compliance, and then removed the materials. Removing the materials allegedly damaged other portions of the building on the project. The third party then sued Flameproof, alleging costs associated with replacing the lumber as well as property damage to the other materials from the removal of the lumber. Flameproof tendered the claim to Lexington seeking a defense. Lexington filed a declaratory action in the Northern District of Illinois. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Bassett may be contacted at bbassett@tlsslaw.com

---

Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

January 09, 2015 — Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico – White and Williams LLP
In lawsuits challenging the validity of business transactions and combinations, the most significant issue is often which standard of review the court applies: the defense-friendly “Business Judgment Rule” or the more stringent “Entire Fairness Standard.” The standard utilized by the court – or more often times the standard which the parties think the court will apply – can drive decisions on motion practice, settlement discussions, and resolution strategy. Under the Business Judgment Rule, directors are presumed to have acted in good faith and their decisions will only be questioned when they are shown to have engaged in self-dealing or fraud. However, if a “Controlling Shareholder” stands on both sides of the transaction, the court will often scrutinize the transaction under the more plaintiff-friendly “Entire Fairness Standard.” So, what constitutes a “Controlling Shareholder?” If the party in question owns more than 50% of a company’s equity, the answer is clear-cut. However, for cases involving stockholders who own less than 50% of a company’s equity and stand on both sides of the disputed transaction, the answer is not so simple. This uncertainty was highlighted in back-to-back decisions by the Delaware Chancery Court in November 2014. On November 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss a derivative lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty in In Re Sanchez Energy Derivative Litigation (“Sanchez”). Vice Chancellor Glasscock held that the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to raise an inference that two directors with a collective 21.5% equity interest in the company were Controlling Shareholders. The very next day, in In Re Zhongpin Inc. Stockholders Litigation (“Zhongpin”), the Delaware Chancery Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against an alleged “Controlling Shareholder” and members of the company’s board. In Zhongpin, Vice Chancellor Noble held that sufficient facts were plead to raise an inference that a CEO with a 17.5% equity was a “Controlling Shareholder.” Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico Mr. Pesso may be contacted at pessom@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Orrico may be contacted at orricoc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Georgia Court Rules that Separate Settlements Are Not the End of the Matter

October 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently took up the question of how parties in a construction defect settlement relate to one another in terms of apportioning the settlement. Scott Murphy, writing on the Barnes & Thornburg blog clarifies the issues. The underlying construction defect case involved a newly-constructed hotel with mold and mildew problems. The owners sued the contractor (for negligent construction) and the architect (for negligent design). Separately, the owners settled with the contractor for $2.3 million and the architect for $100,000. Subsequently, the contractor sued the architect, attempting to recover part of the settlement the contractors had made with the owners. At trial, the architect prevailed, obtaining a summary judgment that under Georgia law, “joint-tortfeasors can no longer assert contribution or non-contractual indemnity claims.” This was reversed by the Court of Appeals, determining that the two were not joint tortfeasors. Mr. Murphy notes that “the court rejected the parties’ attempt to disavow joint and several liability in their respective settlement agreements.” The court ruled that the contractor could proceed with their claims against the argument. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---