Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies

July 20, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On May 26, 2020, a California Court of Appeals (4th District) issued its decision in Mosley et al. v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. The case arose in the context of a marijuana-growing tenant who rerouted a home’s electrical system and caused an electrical fire. The issue was whether the homeowner’s policy covered the loss. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and, in a divided decision, the Court of Appeals reversed in part. The policy excluded losses “resulting from any manufacturing, production or operation, engaged in … the growing of plants.” The parties agreed that the fire resulted from the rewiring of the electrical system, but disagreed on “whether that means the damage” “result[ed] from” “the growing of plants.” The Court held that “resulting from” “broadly links a factual situation with the event creating liability, and connotes only a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship.” In doing so, it equated the terms “results from” and “arising from.” Concluding that a “common sense” approach was to be used, it found a “minimal causal connection” to be present. This expansive standard could be beneficial to policyholders in arguing the causal connection between COVID-19 and ensuing business interruption losses; specifically, that the pandemic, a covered event, is the underlying and proximate cause of the insureds’ physical loss and/or damage and the insured’s resulting business interruption loss, and that intervening events, whether they be orders of civil authority, prevention of ingress/egress or otherwise, would not sever the chain of causation. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Oregon Supreme Court has concluded that if it is possible that damage could have occurred prior to the completion of the project, then the policies in effect at that time are triggered. John Green of Farella Braun + Martel LLP writes that “we have long argued that, since the duty to defend exists if there is any ‘potential’ of covered liability, there is a potential that damage happened before that project was completed, or at any time after completion, triggering all policies in that time frame.” The Oregon court concluded that if property damage could have happened during construction, the insuerer had a duty to defend and “the insured had no burden to establish any additional facts to support that potential.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Lewis Brisbois Listed on Leopard Solutions Top 10 Law Firm Index

March 21, 2022 — Lewis Brisbois
New York, N.Y. (March 17, 2022) – Lewis Brisbois has been listed as a top 10 firm by Leopard Solutions in its annual rankings list of the healthiest law firms in 2021 across the country. Lewis Brisbois was ranked 7th on the list, with a “very good” score of 439. Other firms in the top 10 include Kirkland & Ellis, Greenberg Traurig, and Latham & Watkins. The Leopard Law Firm Index provides insight into law firm health and stability, using a robust list of criteria. This includes attorney growth and retention, financial stability over time, lateral recruiting success, an "Insider Score" based on surveys of attorneys at firms about their workplace (done in partnership with Above the Law), attorney promotions, and overall diversity. Leopard Solutions is a provider of business development solutions and market research reports, for law firms, legal recruiters, and legal departments. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

An Expert’s Qualifications are Important

January 28, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An expert’s qualifications are important. Please remember this the next time you retain an expert to analyze documents or data and render an opinion based on that information. An expert must be qualified to render an opinion. Otherwise the expert will not be allowed to render the opinion you may be looking for or need for purposes of trial, as discussed below. A recent personal injury case, White v. Ring Power Corp., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2729a (Fla. 3d 2018), involved a crane operator that became severely injured when operating a leased crane. The case proceeded to trial against only the equipment lessor of the crane based on the plaintiff’s contention that there were deficiencies with the crane. The plaintiff intended on using expert witnesses to interpret the crane’s load movement indicator (referred to as LMI) and render opinions that the LMI data showed prior overloads of the crane which resulted in the injury to the operator of the crane. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

May 16, 2018 — Christopher M. Horton - Smith Currie
All general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount. Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher M. Horton, Smith Currie
Mr. Horton may be contacted at cmhorton@smithcurrie.com

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

January 08, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client. BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

April 10, 2023 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
In the underlying action, a property owner hosting a motorcycle rally was sued after a motorcycle collided with an auto near the entrance to the premises, injuring the cyclists. The cyclists sued the property owner, among others, alleging failure to supervising traffic on the adjoining roadway. The property owner tendered the claim under its CGL policy, which was endorsed with an “absolute auto exclusion,” precluding coverage for claims “arising out of or resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any…auto.” The CGL insurer disclaimed coverage based on the endorsement. In the ensuing coverage litigation, Traub Lieberman represented the insurer, and moved for summary judgment arguing that the “absolute auto exclusion” was dispositive of coverage on the facts alleged, citing case law from New York state courts enforcing similar exclusions to preclude coverage for multi-vehicle accidents. The insured argued in opposition that the outcome should be controlled by Essex Insurance Company v. Grande Stone Quarry, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 238 (3rd Dep’t 2011), in which the court declined to apply such exclusion in the case of a single-vehicle accident caused by a dangerous condition of the insured’s premises. The federal district judge disagreed with the insured’s argument in this regard, granting Traub Lieberman’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES