Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

November 02, 2017 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
California Evidence Code section 1119 governs the general admissibility of oral and written communications generated during the mediation process. Section 1119(a) provides that “[n]o evidence of anything said or any admission made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . is admissible or subject to discovery, and disclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in any . . . civil action . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, section 1119(b) bars discovery or admission in evidence of any “writing . . . prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(b) (emphasis added). Finally, section 1119(c) provides that “[a]ll communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions by and between participants in the course of a mediation . . . shall remain confidential.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(c) (emphasis added). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

Jury Awards Aluminum Company 35 Million in Time Element Losses

September 23, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On July 3, 2019, a Delaware jury determined that fourteen property insurers for Noranda Aluminum Holding Corp., an aluminum producer that filed for bankruptcy and ceased operations three years ago, owe Noranda over $35 million in time element losses that Noranda sustained as a result of two separate catastrophic incidents that occurred at its aluminum facility in 2015 and 2016. In August 2015, an aluminum explosion occurred at Noranda’s facility, resulting in substantial property damage and bodily injuries. Though the insurers paid for Noranda’s property damage claim, the insurers only covered $5.64 million of Noranda’s $22 million time element claim. In January 2016, the same facility sustained significant damage as a result of equipment failure. The insurers again paid for Noranda’s property damage claim arising from the equipment failure but declined to pay any of its $22.8 million time element claim. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews & Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews & Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Online Meetings & Privacy in Today’s WFH Environment

May 25, 2020 — Heather Whitehead & Joshua Anderson - Newmeyer Dillion
As a result of the COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the Coronavirus) pandemic, remote working arrangements have become the new norm. For those working from home (WFH), the software program “Zoom Meetings,” has found a substantial increase in demand and popularity as a means to facilitate meetings online rather than meeting in person. There are also a number of other similar platforms available for online meetings such as Skype and Teams (from Microsoft), Go to Meeting (from LogMeIn) and WebEx Meetings (Cisco). Best Practices for Businesses - Privacy and Security Protocols With these platforms becoming a necessity for businesses, there are a number of best practices that should be considered to safely conduct online meetings and teleconferences as well as protect information. These include the following:

Upgrade to the most recent version of the program or application;
Use passwords, especially with recurring meetings;
Protect all passwords as well as personal meeting identifiers used in Zoom and other platforms;
Carefully moderate meetings and ask meeting attendees to identify themselves at the beginning of a meeting;
Consider allowing only authenticated users to participate in meetings;
Use the Waiting Rooms feature in Zoom; and
Enable features available only to meeting hosts.

Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion and Joshua Anderson, Newmeyer Dillion Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com Mr. Anderson may be contacted at joshua.anderson@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Application Of Two Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-For-Delay And Liquidated Damages

February 14, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Florida opinion between a prime contractor and a Florida public body touches upon two important issues: (1) the application of a no-damage-for-delay provision; and (2) the application of a liquidated damages provision. Both provisions find there way into many construction contracts. Unfortunately, the opinion is sparse on facts. Nevertheless, the application of these provisions is worthy of consideration. In this opinion, Sarasota County v. Southern Underground Industries, Inc., 2022 WL 162977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), a county hired a contractor to install sanitary and water piping underneath a waterway. During construction, a nearby homeowner complained that vibration from the drilling caused damage to his home. As a result, the county stopped the contractor’s work to address a potential safety issue, as it was contractually entitled to do. The contractor hired a structural engineer to inspect the house and the engineer issued a report determining that any alleged damage was cosmetic and that there was sufficient monitoring of the vibrations to prevent future damage. The contractor also had an insurance policy to cover any homeowner claim for damage. However, upon receipt of the engineer’s report, the county did not lift its stop work order. Rather, the stop work order remained in place for an additional 71 days. 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

Breach of Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

March 19, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined the policy's breach of contract exclusion precluded coverage for a claim against the general contractor insured for construction defects. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. McAtamncy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 497 (N. D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024). McAtamney, a general contractor dong business as Kilrea Construction, was hired by Jeffrey Horowitz for a home-renovation project. After completion of the project, Horowitz discovered defects in the work. He filed a complaint alleging that Kilrea breached obligations to construct and complete the work in an expeditious and workmanlike manner, free from any faults and defects. He brought claims for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, negligence, neglignet supervision, and declaratory relief. Kilrea's insurer, Mt. Hawley, agreed to defend, but reserved the right to later deny coverage for any uncovered claims. The breach of contract exclusion provided there was no duty to defend a claim for property damage arising from breach of an express or implied contract or warranty. 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

Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

March 15, 2021 — Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation Specialist
Many subrogation claims involving fire losses rely heavily on expert testimony. Expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it is both relevant and reliable. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), whose standard has been incorporated into Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Supreme Court instructed federal trial courts to act as a “gatekeeper” of expert testimony, giving them the power to exclude expert testimony that is not supported by sufficient evidence. In Maria Fernanda Elosu and Robert Luis Brace v. Middlefork Ranch Incorporated, Civil Case No. 1:19-cv-00267-DCN, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14449 (D. Idaho Jan. 22, 2021) (Brace), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho exercised its gatekeeper role when it granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to exclude expert testimony pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Brace, involved a fire at a vacation cabin in McCall, Idaho. The cabin, owned by Maria Elosu (Elosu) and Robert Brace (Brace and collectively with Elosu, Plaintiffs) was part of a homeowner’s association called Middlefork Ranch, Incorporated (MFR). The cabin had a “wrap around” deck with a propane-fired refrigerator on the north side. On the day before the fire, Brace stained the deck using an oil-based stain. That night, Elosu smoked cigarettes on the deck. The next morning, Plaintiffs used rags to clean up excess oil from the deck and an MFR employee changed the propane on the refrigerator and relit the pilot light. At 4:00 p.m., a fire started in or around the cabin while no one was home. The fire was discovered by a group of contractors who testified that the fire was isolated to the east side of the cabin when they first arrived. Importantly, one witness testified that there was no fire and no flames around the propane-fired refrigerator. The fire destroyed the cabin and the contents within. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

June 22, 2016 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
The project teams for Edmonton’s two problem bridge-replacement projects have put most of their woes behind them—if trips to civil court and possible late-completion penalties are excluded. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted with questions or comments at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions

May 10, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In recent posts (here and here) I have discussed arbitration provisions and cases dealing with the enforceability of arbitration provisions. The case of Lemos v. Sessa, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D701a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) deals with two noteworthy principles when it comes to arbitration that warrant another post about arbitration provisions. First, courts will and should try to resolve any ambiguity in arbitration provisions in favor of arbitration. Second, when there is an offending arbitration provision or one that includes language that violates public policy, the trial court “should sever the offending provisions from the arbitration clause so long as such severance does not undermine the parties’ intent.” Lemos, supra. This principle is reinforced when the arbitration provision is in an agreement that contains a severability provision. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES