SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits

August 10, 2020 — Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri & Katelyn Werner - Gordon & Rees
Despite first party insurance policies generally requiring cooperation from an insured in the investigation of a claim, insurers can no longer rely on the failure to cooperate as a defense in a claim for first party insurance benefits in Colorado unless certain conditions are met. The Bill: On July 2, 2020, Colorado Governor Jared S. Polis signed House Bill 20-1290 which addresses the ability of an insurer to use a failure to cooperate defense in an action where the insured has made a claim for benefits under an insurance policy. This bill bars an insurer from raising the failure to cooperate unless the following conditions are met:

• The insurer submitted a written request to the insured or the insured’s representative for the information (via electronic means if consent was given by insured or insured’s representative, or via certified mail);
• The information is not available to the insurer without the assistance of the insured;
• The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
• The written request is for information a reasonable person would determine the insurer needs to adjust the claim filed by the insured or to prevent fraud; and
• The insurer gives the insured an opportunity to cure, which must:
• Provide written notice to the insured of the alleged failure to cooperate, describing with particularity the alleged failure within 60 days after the alleged failure; and
• Allow the insured 60 days after receipt of the written notice to cure the alleged failure to cooperate.

Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri and Katelyn Werner Ms. Kroupa may be contacted at ckroupa@grsm.com Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at jpalmeri@grsm.com Ms. Werner may be contacted at kwerner@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

EPA Can't Evade Enviro Firm's $2.7M Cleanup Site Pay Claim, US Court Says

January 25, 2021 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
A Richmond, Va., federal appeals court has restored an environmental consultant's legal fight for $2.7 million in federal funds to cover work at a Superfund cleanup site it managed, rejecting a lower court’s dismissal of its claim over a technicality. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

December 09, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer denied the insured contractor's claim seeking a defense for faulty workmanship based upon the ongoing operations exclusion. PJR Constr. of N.J. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D. N. J. July 31, 2019). PJR Construction was the general contractor to build a swim club and pavilion building for Cambridge Real Property, LLC. PJR began construction on May 29, 2012, and was to complete the construction by March 1, 2013. The project took much longer than anticipated. PJR was denied access to the site on November 13, 2014. Cambridge contended PJR tolerated shoddy workmanship and breached the terms of the contract documents. Cambridge estimated that the project was between 55% and 74.3% complete. PJR and Cambridge went to arbitration. PJR sought a defense from the insurers. Coverage was denied based upon exclusions j (5) and j (6). Exclusion j (5), which the court referred to as the "Ongoing Operations Exclusion," provided the policy did not apply to,

Property Damage to . . . [t]hat particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the property damage arises out of those operations.

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

---

Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015). Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired. After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 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

---

Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

January 04, 2023 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
Bluestone Coke, a 100-year old Birmingham. Ala. factory that produces a key component in steelmaking and is partially owned by West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, must pay nearly $1 million under a Dec. 9 state consent decree for violating federal clean air rules by releasing toxic emissions from coke ovens. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Eleventh Circuit’s Noteworthy Discussion on Bad Faith Insurance Claims

November 01, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in Pelaez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 2021 WL 4258821 (11th Cir. 2021) is a non-construction case that discusses the standard for pursuing a bad faith claim against an insurer. This case dealt with an automobile accident. While the facts of the case are interesting and will be discussed, the takeaway is the Eleventh Circuit’s noteworthy discussion on the standard for bad faith claims and how they should be evaluated. This discussion is included below–with citations–because while the term “bad faith” is oftentimes thrown around when it comes to insurance carriers, there is indeed an evaluative standard that is applied to determine whether an insurance carrier acted in bad faith. In Pelaez, a high school student driving a car crashed with a motorcycle. The motorcycle driver was seriously injured and airlifted to the hospital. The accident was reported to the automobile liability insurer of the driver of the car. The insurer through its investigation initially believed the motorcycle driver was contributory negligent. Eleven days after the crash, after learning additional information, the insurer tendered its bodily injury policy limits of $50,00 to the motorcycle driver even though it never received a settlement demand. The insurer sent a tender package to the motorcycle driver’s lawyer that included a $50,000 check for the bodily injury claim and a proposed release. The accompanying letter told the attorney to contact the insurer with any questions about the release and to edit the proposed release with suggested changes. The insurer also wanted to inspect the motorcycle in furtherance of adjusting the property damage claim which also had a policy limit of $50,000. A location of where the motorcycle could be inspected was never provided. 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

---

Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

July 21, 2018 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
The Pensacola News Journal reported that cracks were discovered again in the Pensacola Bay Bridge, which caused construction of said bridge to be halted once more: “Cracks found in a portion of the concrete in the Pensacola Bay Bridge project have twice halted construction in the last several months, raising concerns about oversight and disclosure from the state, particularly in light of the Miami bridge collapse earlier this year.” The Florida Department of Transportation stated “that the cracks were found during a routine visual inspection of newly placed concrete in March,” according to the Pensacola News Journal. The $400 million project began in 2017 and was scheduled to be completed by 2020. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

November 26, 2014 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
On November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond. Background In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

---