SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Allied Framers, Inc. v. Golden Bear Insurance Company. Allied had been sued in a construction defect case and its primary insurer had become insolvent. Coverage for Allied’s defense was paid for by the California Insurance Guarantee Association through June 8, 2006. When warned that CIGA’s involvement was ending, Allied notified Golden Bear, which declined to provide coverage.

In the matters that followed, Golden Bear claimed that Allied had not exhausted its $1 million in primary insurance. Allied then showed that $1 million had already been paid out in the case. A few months thereafter, Golden Bear offered a $500,000 settlement on behalf of Allied which was rejected. Thereafter, Golden Bear hired new counsel to defend Allied. Golden Bear received, but allegedly did not pay, invoices Allied sent from their former counsel. Golden Bear finally settled the construction defect case for $2 million.

Allied’s original counsel sued Allied for payment. Golden Bear declined coverage. Allied then claimed that Golden Bear liable on several counts, arising from its failure to settle the construction defect action earlier than it did and its failure to pay Allied’s counsel. Golden Bear demurred, arguing that Allied had now exhausted is coverage with the $2 million settlement. The lower court sustained Golden Bear’s demurrer, dismissing Allied’s complaints.

The appeal court reviewed Allied’s seven complaints and sustained most of them. However, the court did reverse the trial court’s order in regard to Allied’s complaint that Golden Bear breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The appeals court was not convinced that Golden Bear properly evaluated the settlement demand in the underlying construction defect case. The court found three other ways in which Golden Bear’s actions might show bad faith, in refusing to pay defense fees “after promising [Allied] such costs would be paid in full,” “failing to advise Allied about ‘actual or potential negative consequences of agreeing to the proposed settlement,’” and that their choice of counsel “failed to protect [Allied’s] interests in the negotiation.”

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

English v. RKK. . . The Saga Continues

December 16, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Remember back in 2018 when I thought I’d told you the end of the English Construction story regarding its various consultants, etc.? I was wrong. The matter went up on appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals where the Appeals Court considered the summary judgment granted to the defendant Rummel, Klepper & Kahl (“RKK”) based upon what came down to a contributory negligence reading of the indemnity clause that was allowed to survive in the first district court opinion relating to these ambiguous contracts finding that English was negligent so couldn’t recover. The 4th Circuit also considered the finding that defendant CDM Smith did not breach its contract as a matter of law and that English’s negligence was the cause of the damages. The Court of Appeals reversed both of the holdings by the Western District of Virginia court, essentially stating that there was enough of a factual dispute to render any summary judgment to be premature. As to English’s arguments regarding the indemnity scheme in the contracts, the court found that the interpretation was at least ambiguous enough that summary judgment was inappropriate, stating:

While we are not prepared to settle conclusively these interpretation disputes at the summary judgment stage, English’s proffered interpretation is, at the very least. reasonable. Indeed, of the two interpretations, English’s seems to be more closely aligned with the actual language in the contract. The district court thus erred in rejecting English’s interpretation and adopting RK&K’s interpretation as a matter of law.

[A]t bottom, while the district court was authorized to construe unambiguous language as a matter of law, it could not resolve genuine disputes regarding the meaning of ambiguous contractual language against the nonmoving party on summary judgment. We therefore vacate the court’s grant of summary judgment to RK&K and remand for further proceedings.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Baltimore Project Pushes To Meet Federal Deadline

July 22, 2019 — Justin Rice - Engineering News-Record
Two giant anaerobic digesters shaped like Faberge eggs have for years served as landmarks for commuters traveling on Interstate-695 east of downtown Baltimore. And cranes, recently removed, signaled the location of one of the latest projects in a years-long, $1.6-billion construction program to upgrade the 100-year-old Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant. “You probably won’t see a collection of this many ‘sticks’ anywhere else in the city,” Shane Lippert noted back in October. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, ENR
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com

---

Florida Enacts Property Insurance Overhaul for Benefit of Policyholders

July 05, 2023 — Laura Farrant & Bradley S. Fischer - Lewis Brisbois
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (June 13, 2023) – On June 1, 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law CS/SB 7052 (the Act), increasing consumer protection and insurer accountability in Florida. The newly enacted and amended statutes under CS/SB 7052 bolster policyholder protections and impose greater insurer oversight, including heightened penalties for insurer misdeeds in the state under a new law that will take effect on July 1, 2023 (this legal alert does not address all of the statutory revisions associated with the Act). As House Speaker Paul Renner noted, “The insurance legislation signed by Governor DeSantis today . . . not only empowers homeowners, but also cultivates market-driven competition, ultimately leading to lower costs.” Statutory Revisions Regarding Insurance Coverage The Act prohibits authorized insurers from cancelling or nonrenewing a property insurance policy for a residential property or dwelling that was damaged by any covered peril until the earlier of: (a) when the property has been repaired; or (b) one year after the insurer issues the final claim payment. The Act also expands current law prohibiting authorized insurers from cancelling or nonrenewing a residential property insurance policy until 90 days after repairs are completed for damages resulting from a hurricane or wind loss that is the subject of a state of emergency declared by the Governor and for which the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) has issued an emergency order. See Fla. Stat. §627.4133(2)(d)(1)(a) and (b) (Notice of cancellation, nonrenewal, or renewal premium). Reprinted courtesy of Laura Farrant, Lewis Brisbois and Bradley S. Fischer, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Farrant may be contacted at Laura.Farrant@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Fischer may be contacted at Bradley.Fischer@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

December 02, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty & Yvette Davis – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vebr v. Culp (Filed 10/28/2015, No. G050730), the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of homeowners, where an employee of an unlicensed painting company was injured on the premises. Despite the fact that the painting company was deemed unlicensed for failure to acquire workers’ compensation insurance, the negligence presumption of Labor Code § 2708 was inapplicable to the homeowners as de facto “employers" of the plaintiff. Plaintiff, Tomas Vebr, was employed by OC Wide Painting, a licensed painting contractor. OC Wide Painting had a license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but had filed for an exemption from the requirement that it maintain workers’ compensation insurance. The exemption was granted on the basis OC Wide Painting “did not have any employees.” However, OC Wide Painting actually had multiple employees, including Vebr. Therefore, by operation of law, the license was deemed void. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Connecting IoT Data to BIM

September 04, 2018 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Internet of Things sensors and IoT-capable devices provide a huge amount of data from buildings. To make this data useful and usable for research, Aalto University is developing and testing a service that links IoT with building information models, BIMs. “The idea to start an experiment on linking IoT with BIM at the Otaniemi campus originated from discussions we had within professor Martti Mäntylä’s Aalto campus IoT group. We realized that several small research projects were simultaneously testing IoT here. So we decided to create a framework for sharing information between the projects,” says Seppo Törmä, CEO of VisuaLynk. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

California Judicial Council Votes to Rescind Prohibitions on Eviction and Foreclosure Proceedings

September 28, 2020 — David Rao & Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The California Judicial Council’s emergency rules staying evictions and judicial foreclosures are coming to an end. On March 27, 2020, the Governor of California issued executive order N-38-20, giving the Judicial Council emergency authority to act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council of California voted to approve temporary emergency rules of court. Rule 1 prohibited the issuance of a summons, or the entering of a default, in an eviction action for both residential and commercial properties except as necessary to protect public health and safety. Rule 1 also continued all pending unlawful detainer trials for at least 60 days, with no new trials being set until at least 60 days after a request was filed. Rule 2 stayed all pending judicial foreclosure actions, tolled the statute of limitations, and extended the deadlines for responding to such actions. Rule 1 and Rule 2 were to remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor declared the state of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic lifted, or until repealed by action of the Judicial Council. On August 13, 2020, the Judicial Council voted 19-1 to sunset Rule 1 and Rule 2 as of September 1, 2020. Beginning September 2, 2020, California state courts are authorized to issue summons on unlawful detainer actions, enter defaults, and set trial dates on request. Stays on pending judicial foreclosure actions will be lifted. Reprinted courtesy of David Rao, Snell & Wilmer and Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Rao may be contacted at drao@swlaw.com Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails

January 11, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer was unsuccessful in seeking to dismiss business interruption claims due to COVID-19 under a pollution policy. New York Botanical Garden v. Allied World Assur., 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct.15, 2021). The insured was forced to cease operation after executive orders by the governor and mayor were issued in March 2020. The insured also had to reduce its in-person workforce by 100%. The insured's claim for business interruption and contingent business interruption were denied by Allied. The insured sued for a declaratory judgment. Allied moved to dismiss, arguing that the executive orders were issued for prophylactic reasons in an effort to mitigate the spread of the virus. They were not issued solely to address the presence of COVID-19 at any non-insured owned location, but were issued broadly to limit the risk of spreading the COVID-19 virus. The insured responded that its broader pollution liability policy was not a typical civil authority policy that required the physical loss or damage to property. 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

---