Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

August 19, 2015 — David W. Evans & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel. Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Delaware State Court Holds that Defective Workmanship Claims do not Trigger Coverage by a Builder’s Commercial General Liability Policy

April 15, 2015 — Marc S. Casarino – White and Williams LLP
Guided by federal case law, on March 31, 2015 a Delaware state court held for the first time in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Miranda & Hardt Contracting and Building Services LLC that a builder’s poor workmanship is not an occurrence for which the builder’s insurance policy affords coverage. In the underlying case giving rise to the coverage dispute, a homeowner alleged that a builder deviated from approved building plans, used inadequate materials, improperly installed materials, violated building codes, and fraudulently represented that a home was properly constructed. The homeowner sued the builder under theories of negligence, negligence per se, and fraud. The insurer denied the builder’s request for defense and indemnification for the homeowner’s claims, citing in part that the allegations of defective workmanship did not qualify as an “occurrence” as defined by the builder’s insurance policy. The builder did not dispute that the underlying complaint alleged defective workmanship. However, the builder asserted that because it had not yet been proven that its work was defective, the insurer had prematurely denied coverage. The court properly rejected the builder’s argument, and reiterated that under Delaware law the court must compare the allegations of the complaint to the insurance policy terms to make a coverage determination. Whether the complaint’s allegations are ultimately meritorious is irrelevant to the initial coverage determination according to the court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com

Timber Prices Likely to Keep Rising

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lumber prices are expected to keep rising, and according to Terry Shumacher, who does business acquisition for private equity firms, that’s a sign to invest in lumber stocks. Writing at Seeking Alpha, he looks at one such company, Tembec, the eleventh largest lumber producer in North America. Tembec is headquartered in Canada, but its stock trades on both the Canadian and American markets. Mr. Schumacher points out that one of the advantages of Tembec as an investment is that its stock is currently trading at about $2.59 a share, so a $50 per million board feet increase in the cost of lumber would make a large percentage change to its earnings to price ratio. (As comparison, Mr. Schumacher offers West Fraser, which is trading at about $89.59. There, the increase in lumber prices would have a much smaller effect on the stock price.) There’s going to be a greater demand for lumber, not only due to increased housing starts but that North American firms have started exporting lumber to China. Add to that the loss of trees in some areas due to beetle infestations. The death of standing timber has lead to some sawmills shutting down for lack of logs. All of which points to increased timber prices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

March 05, 2015 — Svenja O’Donnell – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to double the number of homes built for first-time buyers by the end of the next parliamentary term in a bid to tackle Britain’s housing shortage. In a speech in Colchester, Essex, on Monday setting out the final part of his Tory party’s six-point campaign platform for the May 7 election, Cameron said 200,000 properties will be built by 2020 under his starter-homes plan. Prices of the homes, only available to first-time buyers under the age of 40, will be capped at 450,000 pounds ($692,000) in London and 250,000 pounds outside the capital. Reduced planning constraints will make it easier for developers to cut building costs, allowing the homes to be sold at a 20 percent discount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Svenja O’Donnell, Bloomberg
Ms. O’Donnell may be contacted at sodonnell@bloomberg.net

Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

January 09, 2015 — Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico – White and Williams LLP
In lawsuits challenging the validity of business transactions and combinations, the most significant issue is often which standard of review the court applies: the defense-friendly “Business Judgment Rule” or the more stringent “Entire Fairness Standard.” The standard utilized by the court – or more often times the standard which the parties think the court will apply – can drive decisions on motion practice, settlement discussions, and resolution strategy. Under the Business Judgment Rule, directors are presumed to have acted in good faith and their decisions will only be questioned when they are shown to have engaged in self-dealing or fraud. However, if a “Controlling Shareholder” stands on both sides of the transaction, the court will often scrutinize the transaction under the more plaintiff-friendly “Entire Fairness Standard.” So, what constitutes a “Controlling Shareholder?” If the party in question owns more than 50% of a company’s equity, the answer is clear-cut. However, for cases involving stockholders who own less than 50% of a company’s equity and stand on both sides of the disputed transaction, the answer is not so simple. This uncertainty was highlighted in back-to-back decisions by the Delaware Chancery Court in November 2014. On November 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss a derivative lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty in In Re Sanchez Energy Derivative Litigation (“Sanchez”). Vice Chancellor Glasscock held that the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to raise an inference that two directors with a collective 21.5% equity interest in the company were Controlling Shareholders. The very next day, in In Re Zhongpin Inc. Stockholders Litigation (“Zhongpin”), the Delaware Chancery Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against an alleged “Controlling Shareholder” and members of the company’s board. In Zhongpin, Vice Chancellor Noble held that sufficient facts were plead to raise an inference that a CEO with a 17.5% equity was a “Controlling Shareholder.” Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico Mr. Pesso may be contacted at pessom@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Orrico may be contacted at orricoc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Maryland Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, recently reaffirmed that condominium association have broad discretion in suing for construction defects in when they are representing at least two unit owners. Nicholas D. Cowie of the Baltimore-based construction defect legal firm Cowie & Mott, gives his summary of the case on his firm’s web site. Mr. Cowie notes that the Council of Unit Owners of Bentley Place Condominium sued the developer and builder for construction defects in both common areas and within units, representing itself and “two or more” unit owners. A jury awarded $6.6 million; the builder and developer appealed. The court ruled on the appeal that the Council of Unit Owners had a right to pursue these claims, and could recover full damage to common elements, even if some owners are time-barred due to their date of purchase. Mr. Cowie represented the Council of Unit Owners during the lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Texas Supreme Court to Review Eight-Corners Duty-to-Defend Rule

April 05, 2021 — Jared De Jong - Payne & Fears
The Texas Supreme Court has accepted certified questions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to clarify Texas’ eight-corners rule for determining the existence of a duty to defend. In Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit asked the Texas Supreme Court to provide guidance on Texas insurance law. In Bitco, the insured was sued for negligently drilling an irrigation well. The insured allegedly got a drilling bit stuck in a bore hole, refused to fix the issue, and eventually abandoned the well. The policy did not cover continuing property damage known to the insured before the policy incepted. The policy period ran from Oct. 6, 2015 to Oct. 6, 2016, and the parties stipulated the drill bit became stuck in November 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears
Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com

Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018

July 28, 2018 — Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
With the Fourth of July festivities still ringing in our collective ears, we are having our own celebration at Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC. We avoid using this blog as a platform for self-promotion as we want to keep relevant construction industry news and notes hitting your inboxes. Longtime readers will know, however, that we make an exception to recognize the Super Lawyers of the firm, who are each humbled to receive this peer-voted award. We also share this news in recognition of our clients and industry-partners who have put their trust and confidence in us. Without these relationships, these industry acknowledgments would have no significance. Super Lawyers is a wholly independent company that identifies outstanding lawyers in the profession. It selects attorneys using a patented multiphase selection process based on legal excellence, industry involvement, and civic leadership. Super Lawyers’ initial pool of candidates is based on peer nominations and evaluations from outside the firm, which is then combined with Super Lawyers’ own third-party research. Only five percent of all lawyers in Washington State are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers Rising Stars. What makes this award meaningful is it is based upon evaluation of individual merit—as opposed to a “pay-to-win” award. John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, is again recognized as one of the 10-Best Lawyers in the State of Washington across all practicing industries. Founding partner Paul R. Cressman, Jr. and partner Brett M. Hill are also recognized as two of the 100-Best Lawyers across all practicing industries in Washington State. In addition, three other firm members are also recognized as Super Lawyers: Founding partner Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen (of counsel), and Lawrence S. Glosser (partner). In addition, Ryan W. Sternoff (partner), Lindsay (Taft) Watkins (partner), Ceslie A. Blass (associate), and Scott D. MacDonald (associate) were selected as Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Well over half of the firm’s lawyers received Super Lawyers distinction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES