Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

There Was No Housing Bubble in 2008 and There Isn’t One Now

January 17, 2022 — Ramesh Ponnuru - Bloomberg
Housing markets are red hot, with prices up more than 18% from November 2020 to November 2021. That’s an acceleration over the previous two years, which saw increases of 4% and 8% each. It’s also a faster rate than the U.S. experienced during the housing boom of the 2000s that preceded the Great Recession. That comparison is causing some heartburn. “Are we in another housing bubble?” asked Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s. The consensus, shared by Zandi, is that the answer is no — or, at least, that today’s bubble is different and less dangerous than the last one. Lending standards are more strict than they were 15 years ago, for example, which ought to mean that fewer homeowners are at risk of defaulting if prices fall. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ramesh Ponnuru, Bloomberg

Balfour Taps Qinetiq’s Quinn as new CEO to Revamp Builder

October 15, 2014 — Benjamin Katz and Simon Thiel – Bloomberg
Balfour Beatty Plc (BBY) named Leo Quinn as new chief executive officer to revamp Britain’s biggest builder which has suffered from mismanaged projects and a lack of demand. Quinn will start on Jan. 1 after five years as CEO of defense specialist Qinetiq Group Plc, Balfour Beatty said today. The executive began his career at Balfour Beatty in 1979 as a civil engineer and later worked as president of Honeywell Building Controls and CEO of banknote printer De La Rue Plc. The stock gained 5.3 percent in London trading today. Balfour Beatty, which rejected a merger proposal from British rival Carillion Plc in August, has struggled since the global recession slashed orders and prices. Its stock had fallen 48 percent this year before today, reducing the company’s value to 1 billion pounds ($1.6 billion). In September, Balfour Beatty cut its U.K. construction-services unit’s profit forecast and said Chairman Steve Marshall plans to leave. Mr. Thiel may be contacted at sthiel1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Katz may be contacted at bkatz38@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Katz and Simon Thiel, Bloomberg

Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

November 23, 2020 — Christopher P. Leise & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLP
After an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier. USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.” Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement

September 13, 2021 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. XL Ins. Am., Inc., 20-CV-4614 (LJL), 2021 WL 3617218 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York—in deciding a motion for consideration—had occasion to review the 2013 ISO changes to the additional insured endorsement, and held that coverage under a policy providing additional insured coverage was limited to the $1,000,000 required by contract, and not the $2,500,000 limit to the policy. In Zurich, Zurich and its named insured D.A. Collins sought the full limits of the primary policy issued by XL to the D.A. Collins’ subcontractor, HBI, which are $2,5000 per occurrence and in the aggregate, for an underlying personal injury lawsuit. XL also issued an excess policy in the amount of $5,000,000 to HBI. The contract between D.A. Collins and HBI required HBI to obtain commercial liability coverage “in an amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. It further provides that the “required limits for the umbrella excess coverage shall be sufficient to provide a total of $5,000,000 per occurrence/aggregate.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

March 19, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In North Counties Engineering v. State Farm (No. A133713, filed 3/13/14), State Farm insured an engineering company under CGL insurance that had a professional services exclusion and included products-completed operations (PCO) coverage. The owner of the engineering company, NCE, contracted with a winery to construct a dam and associated works. Also on the project was the owner's son, who had his own construction company, NCD. There were multiple contracts, both oral and written, variously naming one company or the other. The evidence later showed that the father performed hands-on work for the project. After completion, the winery was sued over sediment and erosion caused by the dam. State Farm denied coverage on the ground that the professional services exclusion applied, as well as a mistaken belief that the policy had no PCO coverage. State Farm then changed its position and agreed to defend, but only going forward. The insured sued State Farm over past defense fees, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The case went to trial and after testimony detailing State Farm's claim handling, the trial judge granted a nonsuit, finding that the professional services exclusion barred all coverage: "[I]f you look at the pleadings, the legal pleadings and the contracts, the NCE role is, as the engineering company, the support company, and that company was overseeing the [sic] NCD to make sure that whatever they did was done right.... NCE is the expert on the job, the professional providing professional services, design and construction, and also overseeing the work of NCD, the son’s business, which is doing more of the physical activity.... That takes professional expertise and I think all of what Mr. Akerstrom did was professional.... It was this professional work, and not 'something incidental to their professional involvement' that gave rise to the underlying actions. In this situation, it’s not a malpractice or E and O policy. It’s a business policy, which has good benefits, but is subject to the professional services exclusion." Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

"Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

February 02, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of coverage for the insured based upon the exclusion for "damage to your product." S.E. Arnold & Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 625 (Ark. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2016). The homeowners paid the insured, S.E. Arnold & Company, over $78,000 to supply and install wood flooring in their residence. The homeowners eventually sued Arnold, alleging that the products and services as provided by Arnold had breached its contract, Arnold was negligent, and it violated applicable rules, regulations, and laws. Specifically, the homeowners alleged that the flooring as sold and installed had splinters, cupping occurred across the width of the individual pieces of flooring, and installation was in contradiction to industry standards and applicable building codes. 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

The Construction Industry's Health Kick

October 02, 2018 — Erin Ansley - Construction Executive
The construction industry appears to be on a health kick, and by all accounts it isn’t a fad. Trends identified in recent years in the health care sector are strengthening with a surge of new projects nationwide. “All parts of the country are experiencing significant health care design and construction activity,” observes Hank Adams, HDR’s global director of health. “We’re expecting continued growth into the near future and feel optimistic that the marketplace will continue to be strong.” Modern urban planning strategies, engineering advancements and sophisticated design take center stage as oversized hospitals serving large patient populations within a 100-mile radius make way for more specialized centers that target the overall wellness of the local community. Reprinted courtesy of Erin Ansley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules

April 29, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
San Diego, Calif. (April 10, 2024) - California legislators have changed the rules of discovery in civil cases through the passage of amendments to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2016.090 and 2023.050, effective January 1, 2024. Section 2016.090 creates a new set of rules for civil litigators in cases filed on or after January 1, 2024, which permits any party to the litigation to demand initial disclosures be provided within 60-days. Such a demand can be made any time after a party has filed a responsive pleading, including a demurrer or motion to strike. Notably, this rule requires production of all information relevant to any causes of action that are pled at the time of the demand, meaning the parties may be required to disclose information related to claims that are being challenged on demurrer or a motion to strike, such as claims for punitive damages. This statute is only implicated when one of the parties to the action makes a demand and may be modified by stipulation of the parties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES