Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

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

Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

May 10, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Lawsuits filed for recovery due to the faulty design and installation of doors and windows by homeowners across the country were found to allege multiple occurrences. Pella Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. 53631 (C.D. Iowa March 31, 2017). The underlying lawsuits alleged that Pella Corporation's windows were defectively designed, manufactured, or installed, and allowed water intrusion to buildings that resulted in third-party property damage or personal injury. Pella sued Liberty Mutual for declaratory judgment and filed a motion for partial summary judgment to determine how many occurrences the underlying cases presented. Pella sought a determination that each of the 15 underlying cases presented one "occurrence" as the term was defined in the CGL policies issued by Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual argued that only three or four occurrences were presented, relying on common fact patterns. Pella argued that there were separate and distinct causes of different injuries and damage and thus, each underlying case constituted a separate occurrence. Liberty Mutual, on the other hand, highlighted language within the definition of "occurrence," which stated that an "occurrence" included "continuous or repeated exposure to the same general harmful conditions." The "substantially the same general harmful conditions" language dictated that the scope of "occurrence" be understood to be broad, such that various instances of damage-causing water intrusion in different times and places constituted "substantially the same general harmful conditions." 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

Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work

January 06, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a contractor is defaulted under a performance bond, can its surety hire the same defaulted contractor to complete the work? Stated differently, can the performance bond surety engage its defaulted bond-principal in taking over and completing the same work the contractor was defaulted under? The answer is “yes” if you are dealing with a standard form AIA A312 performance bond (and other bond forms that contain analogous language), as demonstrated by the recent decision in Seawatch at Marathon Condominium Association, Inc. v. The Guarantee Company of North America, 2019 WL 4850194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). In this case, a condominium association hired a contractor in a multi-million dollar contract to renovate condominium buildings. The contractor provided the association, as the obligee, a performance bond written on an AIA A312 performance bond form. During construction, the association declared the contractor in default and terminated the contractor. In doing so, the association demanded that the performance bond surety make an election under paragraph 4 of the AIA A312 bond form that gave the surety the following options: 4.1 Arrange for the CONTRACTOR, with consent of the OWNER, to perform and complete the Contract; or 4.2 Undertake to perform and complete the Contract itself, through its agents or through independent contractors; or 4.3 Obtain bids or negotiated proposals from qualified contractors acceptable to the OWNER for a contract for performance and completion of the Contract, arrange for a contract to be prepared for execution by the OWNER and the contractor selected with the OWNER’S concurrence, to be secured with performance and payment bonds executed by a qualified surety equivalent to the Bonds Issued on the Contract, and pay to the OWNER the amount of damages as described in paragraph 6 in excess of the Balance of the Contract Price incurred by the OWNER resulting from the CONTRACTOR Default; or 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

City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A wall along a beach trail in Treasure Island, Florida is cracking, and opinions are divided over it. One city commissioner, Alan Bildz, said “it looks like somebody was doing their first concrete job.” An engineer from the design firm described it as a “cosmetic issue.” Bildz was overruled on his suggestion that the wall be torn down and rebuilt. In later sections of the wall, expansion joints seem to have remedied the problem. But while the architect has offered to pay for filling the cracks with epoxy and polyurethane caulk, there’s still the question of adding expansion joints to the project. City Commissioner Phil Collins noted that the city has allocated more than $50,000 to add expansion joints, yet he feels the city should not be responsible for the expense, noting that the design could be considered defective, and under the terms of the contract, “the contractor shall bear the cost.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What is Bad Faith?

April 04, 2022 — Stacy M. Manobianca - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
As a policyholder, you may have heard the term “bad faith” in the context of litigation against your insurer. Bad faith in the insurance context is a catch-all term for a broad category of claims that can be brought against your insurer. Bad faith claims are common in insurance coverage litigation, and they can be a powerful tool in a policyholder’s arsenal. This post will serve as an introduction to some basic concepts surrounding bad faith litigation.

Bad Faith Defined:

Statutory vs. Common Law Bad Faith Claims
Breach of Contract vs. Tort Bad Faith Claims
Substantive vs. Procedural Bad Faith Claims

Best Practices Throughout the Claims Process:
Involve an Experienced Coverage Attorney
Conclusion

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at SManobianca@sdvlaw.com

The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
On his Best Practices Construction Law blog, Matthew Devries discussed how the “at its sole option…has the right to demand arbitration” can “be a good provision if you are the party who has that option.” For instance, Devries cites the case Archer Western Contractors, LLC v Holder Construction Company, where “the Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant a contractor’s motion to compel arbitration with a ‘sole option’ provision.” Devries stated that “it is important to review carefully the disputes clause in your construction contract to fully understand who has the right to demand arbitration and what rules will apply.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

October 05, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
Most general liability policies only provide coverage for “property damage” that occurs during the policy period. Thus, when analyzing coverage for a construction defect claim, it is important to ascertain the date on which damage occurred. Of course, the plaintiffs’ bar crafts pleadings to be purposefully vague as to the date (or period) of damage to property. A recent Fifth Circuit decision applying Texas law addresses this coverage issue in the context of allegations of a condition created by an insured during the policy period that caused damage after the policy expired. In Gonzalez v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 969 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2020), Gilbert Gonzales (the insured) was a siding contractor. In 2013, the underlying plaintiff hired Gonzales to install new siding on his house. In 2016, the underlying plaintiff’s house was damaged in a fire. The underlying plaintiff sued Gilbert in Texas state court alleging that when Gonzalez installed the siding in 2013, he hammered nails through electrical wiring and created a dangerous condition that caused a fire three years later in 2016. At the time Gilbert performed construction work, he was insured by Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage to Gonzales on the basis that the complaint unequivocally alleged that property was damaged in 2016 and there were no allegations that property damage occurred prior to 2016 or was continuing in nature. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

Rhode Island Sues 13 Industry Firms Over Flawed Interstate Bridge

September 23, 2024 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
In an attempt to recoup any money Rhode Island will owe to others for rerouting traffic on half of a high-volume interstate bridge in Providence after structural flaws had been detected, the state Dept. of Transportation filed a lawsuit Aug. 16 against 13 engineers and contractors that had inspected or performed work on the Washington Bridge in the last decade. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES