Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

August 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that cosmetic damage to the insured's roof was covered. Advance Cable Co., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9805 (7th Cir. June 11, 2015). The insured submitted a claim to its insurer, Cincinnati, for damage to the metal roof of its building caused by a hail storm. The insured inspected the roof with a claims representative for Cincinnati. Dents were spotted, but there was little other evidence of damage. The loss was estimated at $1,894.74. A check for this amount was sent to the insured. Six months later, the insured considered selling the building. A potential buyer inspected the roof and found hail damage. At the request of the insured, Cincinnati conducted another inspection of the roof. Again, dents of approximately 1 inch in diameter were found. The inspector noted that the denting would not affect the performance of the roof panels or detract from their life expectancy. 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

Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment

December 07, 2020 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In American Reliable Insurance Company v. Lancaster, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a property insurer’s summary judgment motion concerning the insurer’s denial of a fire loss claim. The basis of the denial was that the policyholders had failed to pay the policy premium. The policyholders, Charlie and Wanda Lancaster, claimed that they had paid their policy premiums for several years to their insurance agent, Macie Yawn. In October 2014, American Reliable mailed a renewal notice to the Lancasters notifying them that premium payments had to be made directly to the insurer. After it did not receive payment from the Lancasters, American Reliable sent them a cancellation notice in December 2014, again notifying them that payments be made directly to the insurer. The Lancasters denied having received either notice from American Reliable, but the record included a receipt for certificate of mailing. After the Lancaster’s home burned down in 2015, American Reliable denied coverage on the grounds that the policy had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium. In the subsequent coverage action, the trial court denied American Reliable’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that a factual issue existed as to the actual and apparent agency of the insurance agent, Yawn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in deciding that there was a factual issue concerning Yawn’s agency. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruled that the record showed American Reliable had terminated Yawn’s agency to accept policy premiums, and that the Lancaster’s received notice of that termination in the renewal and cancellation notices. In addition to determining that Yawn was not an actual agent, the Court held that Yawn did not have apparent agency, because the notices sent to the Lancasters stated that the premium payment was to be paid to American Reliable, not to the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

February 05, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin and Whitney L. Stefko – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On January 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, in Eriksson v. Nunnink (Case No. E057158), held a release of liability between Decedent and Defendant was enforceable as a defense to the Decedent's Parents' wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") claims. In Eriksson, the Court concluded that on the basis of the signed release agreement, Defendant did not owe a duty of care to Decedent and thus could only be liable for Decedent's death if caused by the Defendant's gross negligence. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish gross negligence and affirmed the lower court's judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin and Whitney L. Stefko Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability

September 29, 2021 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible. LG Electronics arose from a fire at the home of Thomas and Lisa Ellis. The public sector fire investigator identified the area of fire origin as the top of a refrigerator manufactured by LG Electronics USA, Inc. (LG). The Ellises filed a claim with their homeowner’s insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company (Insurer). Insurer retained a fire investigator and an electrical engineer to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator agreed with the public sector investigator that the fire originated at the top of the refrigerator. The engineer conducted a forensic inspection of the scene and ruled out all potential external ignition sources. He then examined the internal components of the refrigerator. He found arcing activity on a wire at the front top of the refrigerator. He opined that there were two possible causes of the fire: either the heater circuit insulation failed over time due to mechanical damage, or the heat from the internal light fixture ignited combustible components of the refrigerator. Since the engineer ruled out improper use of the refrigerator, he opined that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Cybersecurity "Flash" Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

April 26, 2021 — Jeffrey M. Dennis - Newmeyer Dillion
The FBI recently released its 2020 Internet Crime Report (Report), which details and analyzes complaints received through the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). In 2020, IC3 received a record number of complaints – nearly 800,000, with reported losses in excess of $4.1 billion. Companies must acknowledge that cybercrime is a real, dangerous threat to their business, and understand how, and why, these threats continue to escalate. At a minimum, businesses should take several proactive steps to protect themselves. What is IC3? IC3 is an online platform hosted by the FBI, which exists to provide the public with a trusted place to report cybercrime to the FBI. Since its inception in 2000, the IC3 has received 5.6 million complaints, and has averaged approximately 440,000 complaints over each of the last five years. The complaint figure for 2020 is nearly double that average. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com

Infrared Photography Illuminates Construction Defects and Patent Trolling

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Reuben Saltzman, a home inspector in the Minneapolis area wrote a piece for the Star Tribune in which he discussed the use of infrared photography in home inspections. Lack of insulation and water intrusion show up clearly on infrared photography where there is not yet any visible damage. Moist or cold areas show up as darker than their surroundings. Mr. Saltzman included one photo with his article in which the problem shows up as a hot spot: a carpet installer had covered over a floor register. Mr. Saltzman’s use of infrared photography may be in danger, as he recently learned that a Mississippi firm has actually taken out a patent on using infrared photography for home inspections. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

October 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit held there is a duty to defend not only a PRP letter issued by the EPA, but also a section 104 (e) letter. Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2013). The insured received two letters from the EPA notifying it of potential liability under CERCLA for environmental contamination of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The first letter was received in January 2008, and stated that the EPA sought the insured's cooperation in its investigation of the release of hazardous substances at the site. The letter enclosed an extensive, 82-question "Information Request" seeking information about the insured's current and former activities at the site. The letter informed the insured that its voluntary cooperation was sought, but compliance with the Information Request was required by law and failure to respond could result in an enforcement action and civil penalties of $32,500 per day. The insured tendered the 104 (e) letter to St. Paul and requested a defense and indemnity pursuant to the CGL policy. St. Paul declined to provide a defense because the letter did not constitute a "suit," which was required by the policy to trigger the duty to defend. The second letter from the EPA, received in November 2009, was entitled "General Notice Letter for the Portland Superfund Site" and notified the insured that it was a "potentially responsible party ("PRP"). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

September 24, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Stairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so. A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station. Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed. The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].) The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256. Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES