Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

July 20, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.

The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.

Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.

After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.

The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”

Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”

The court concluded:

Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Give a Little Extra …”

July 31, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Surplus lines insurers in Louisiana are considered by the state to be “an alternative type of property and casualty insurance coverage for consumers who cannot get coverage on the standard market … for specialty risk or high-risk situations….” As a quid pro quo for undertaking the exceptional risk, a surplus lines insurer argued to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that an arbitration clause within its surplus line policy should be enforceable, notwithstanding a Louisiana statute applying to the insurance industry and prohibiting terms in insurance policies “delivered or issued for delivery” in Louisiana which have the effect of “[d]epriving the courts of this state of the jurisdiction or venue of action against the insurer.” La. R.S. 22:868. Historically in Louisiana, arbitration clauses have been understood to divest courts of jurisdiction, and, consequently, §22:868 has been held to memorialize an “anti-arbitration policy,” although the statute does not specifically mention arbitration. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

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

Columbus, Ohio’s Tallest Building to be Inspected for Construction Defects

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Fox 28 news reported that “[t]he state of Ohio is going to spend more than $166,000 to inspect…the 40-year-old Rhodes Tower” in Columbus. "They're going to look at the exterior of the building - [at] sealants between the joints, the condition of the panels, the window systems, how they're draining, how they're operating, and how they're sealed," Ned Thiell, of Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, told ABC 6/FOX 28 news. A study completed last year declared there were “’deficiencies’ on the building’s stone covering” and there were “panels with severe fracture defects” that “will need to be replaced with new stone panels.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Request for Stay Denied in Dispute Over Coverage for Volcano Damage

August 10, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Although there were concurrent state and federal proceedings regarding the insureds' claims for damage caused by Kilauea Volcano, the federal district court refused to dismiss or stay the federal action. Aqulina v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Syndicate #2003, 2020 U.S. District Ct. LEXIS 101832 (D. Haw. June 10, 2020). Plaintiffs held homeowner's policies from Lloyd's that were brokered and underwritten by various defendants. Coverage from the May 2018 eruption of Kilauea Volcano was denied based upon an exclusion precluding coverage for lava-related damage. Plaintiffs sued Lloyds and various brokers in federal court, alleging that defendants had engaged in a deceptive scheme to defraud plaintiffs and deprive them of meaningful coverage. Lawsuits were also filed in state court, with plaintiffs arguing their losses were covered by their policies and that defendants wrongfully relied solely on the lava exclusion to deny claims. 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

Rental Assistance Program: Good News for Tenants and Possibly Landlords

January 25, 2021 — Marissa Levy, Rachel A. Schneidman & Nancy Sabol Frantz - White and Williams LLP
The recently enacted $2.3 trillion Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the Act), which combined a $900 billion coronavirus relief bill as part of a larger $1.4 trillion omnibus spending and appropriations bill for the 2021 federal fiscal year, contains key provisions that directly impact the hard-hit real estate industry. In particular, Section 501 of Subtitle A of Title V of Division N of the Act establishes the “Emergency Rental Assistance program” (ERA), which appropriates $25 billion through the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to provide eligible households with direct financial housing assistance. The enactment of the ERA provides landlords, tenants, borrowers, potential buyers, financial institutions and small businesses with a necessary lifeline to weather the ongoing economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. From the $25 billion designated for rental assistance, $800 million is reserved for tribal communities and $400 million is reserved for U.S. territories, with the remaining funds to be distributed to state and local governments (grantees) within 30 days of enactment. Under the ERA, fund allocations will be based on a state’s population, with all states, and the District of Columbia, receiving at least $200 million. Local jurisdictions with populations of 200,000 or more may also apply directly to the Treasury for assistance, which would be reduced from the amount granted to the state in which the jurisdiction is located. Reprinted courtesy of Marissa Levy, White and Williams LLP, Rachel A. Schneidman, White and Williams LLP and Nancy Sabol Frantz, White and Williams LLP Ms. Levy may be contacted at levymp@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Schneidman may be contacted at schneidmanr@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Hazards of Carrier-Specific Manuscript Language: Ohio Casualty's Off-Premises Property Damage and Contractors' E&O Endorsements

October 05, 2020 — Theresa A. Guertin & Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Risk transfer in the construction industry depends heavily on industry-standard insurance language. Insurance provisions in subcontracts typically reference ISO standard insurance terminology or endorsements in order to guarantee (or, at least, attempt to secure) coverage for upstream parties. The contract may require, for example, that a subcontractor maintains general liability insurance on a “current ISO occurrence form,” and name upstream parties as additional insureds, and both parties will have a general understanding of what that entails for purposes of risk transfer. Problems arise, however, when insurance companies stray from standard language, especially on issues that go to the heart of construction risk transfer. In some instances, provisions that track ISO language may contain subtle changes that seem to meet the contractual insurance requirements. Upon closer scrutiny, it could significantly change how a policy will respond to a given claim. Given the extent of potential liability arising from construction projects, if the insurance programs intended to back up risk transfer and indemnity agreements do not respond as expected, all the potentially liable parties may be left in the lurch. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at emc@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

January 02, 2024 — Susana Arce - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
A majority of insurance policies require the insured to cooperate with the insurer. The cooperation clause generally states, “the insured agrees to Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the suit.” The “cooperation clause” is often an afterthought because once litigation has ensued an insured is focused on other important considerations. However, insureds should not forget that complying with the cooperation clause can make the difference between the insurer covering or denying a claim. The Cooperation Clause in Action The Court in HDI Glob. Specialty SE v. PF Holdings, LLC,1 highlighted the importance of cooperating with an insurance carrier. In the underlying litigation, residents of an apartment complex sued four entities, all insured by the same insurance policy: two were named insureds and two were additional insureds. The primary insurer provided a defense for the named insureds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Arce may be contacted at SArce@sdvlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES