SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Demand for New Homes Good News for Home Builders

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Stock prices are up for both KB Homes and Lennar, with shares of KB Homes up 7 % and Lennar up 5.5%. Both home builders are profiting from increased demand for new homes while supplies were scarce. Both firms have seen a strong increase in orders during the last quarter. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

June 28, 2021 — Robert S. Nobel & Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
New York recognizes that coverage under Workers’ Compensation (“WC”) and Employer’s Liability (“EL”) policies is generally unlimited. See Tully Const. Co. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 131 A.D.3d 598 (2d Dept. 2015); Oneida Ltd. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 263 A.D.2d 825, 694 N.Y.S.2d 221 (3d Dept. 1999). However, there is case holding that EL coverage may be limited in certain instances, such as when the primary EL carrier is listed as scheduled underlying insurance on an excess policy. In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 43 A.D.3d 666, 841 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1st Dept. 2007), an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation (“General”), a subcontractor on a construction project, sought to recover under New York’s Labor Law against the project’s owner and construction manager. Those defendants, in turn, brought a third-party action for indemnification against General. The employee’s personal injury claim was ultimately settled for $2.5 million. After the settlement, the excess insurer, Liberty, filed suit against the primary employer’s liability insurers, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and American International Group of Companies (collectively, “AIG”), which had refused to participate in the defense or settlement of the underlying personal injury litigation. Although the issue of whether the plaintiff in the underling action had sustained a “grave injury” (necessary to support the common law indemnity claim against General and trigger coverage under the Employer’s Lability policy) had not yet been determined, the court held that “[i]n the event the existence of a grave injury is proven, AIG’s liability will be limited to $1 million.” Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman and Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute

November 12, 2019 — Jeremy S. Macklin & Mark F. Wolfe - Traub Lieberman Perspectives
In a written decision dated August 12, 2019, authored by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurer client, affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the insurer’s favor. Partners, Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe, represented the insurer client in the District Court and before the Seventh Circuit. Macklin argued the case before the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the insurer on May 28, 2019. The insurer client issued an excess liability policy to Deerfield Construction, a telecommunications construction company, which incorporated the notice requirements of the primary liability insurance policy issued by American States Insurance Company. The insured’s employee was involved in an automobile accident in 2008, during the effective dates of the excess liability policy. A lawsuit arising from the accident was filed and served in 2009. While Deerfield Construction, through its retained insurance intermediary, provided immediate notice of the accident and lawsuit to the primary liability insurer, the insurer client did not receive notice of either the accident or the lawsuit from any source until December 2014, approximately six weeks before trial. Following a $2.3 million judgment, the insurer client filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a finding that Deerfield Construction materially breached the excess liability policy by not providing reasonable notice of the accident or the lawsuit, as required by the policy. The District Court found that the notice given to the insurer client was unreasonable as a matter of law. The District Court rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that an insurance broker involved in the purchase of the excess liability policy, Arthur J. Gallagher, was the insurer client’s apparent agent for purposes of accepting notice. The District Court also rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that the insurer client’s acts of requesting discovery, reviewing trial reports, and participating in settlement discussions raised equitable estoppel concerns. Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and Mark F. Wolfe, Traub Lieberman Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com Mr. Wolfe may be contacted at mwolfe@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

June 29, 2017 — Nicole Rodolico, Esq. - Florida Construction Law News
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal (“Third District”) recently addressed the applicable statute of limitations for repairs under Section 95.11, Florida Statutes, including the issue of whether a repair constitutes an improvement to real property. In Companion Property & Casualty Group v. Built Tops Building Services, Inc., No. 3D16-2044, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6584 (Fla. 3d DCA May 10, 2017) (“Companion”), the Third District ruled that the trial court erred in finding that a subrogation action arising out of an alleged defective roof repair was time-barred because the statute of limitations had run. On February 8, 2016, Companion Property & Casualty Group (“Companion”) filed its complaint against a building services company, Built Tops Building Services, Inc. (“Built Tops”), for negligent repair of its insured’s roof. Companion alleged that the defective roof repair was performed on November 21, 2006. Companion further alleged that as a result of Built Tops’ work, the insured suffered water damage to the condominium building on February 9, 2012. Built Tops moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the applicable four-year statute of limitations had run on Companion’s claim, which Built Tops argued accrued on the date the repair was performed, November 21, 2006. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicole Rodolico, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Ms. Rodolico may be contacted at nicole.rodolico@csklegal.com

---

Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A condominium association in the Aspen, Colorado area will likely go to trial over its claims of construction defects, reports Aspen Daily News Online. According to the suit, siding and trim were improperly manufactured and installed. The homeowners engaged experts to determine the appropriate remedy, and then sought bids from contractors. Shaw Construction, which built the condos, responded with a counteroffer. Chris Rhody, the lawyer for the homeowners, said there was “a big difference” between the association’s request and the builder’s counteroffer. According to Mr. Rhody, settlement is still possible, but seems unlikely. A date for the trial is yet to be set. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v St. Catherine of Siena Parish, a U.S. appeals court affirmed "that unexpected and unintended property damage is an ‘occurrence,’” reported Construction Equipment Guide. The underlying case involved roof leaks after the replacement of two Parish roofs, which ultimately led to a trial where Parish was awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages for breach of contract. However, Penn National disputed any obligation to pay, stating that “a breach of contract claim was not an ‘occurrence’ under the policy and even if such claims were an occurrence, the contractual liability and/or ‘your work’ exclusions would bar recovery.” However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ruled “that there was coverage for the property damage caused by the leaks because an ‘accident’ meant an unintended and unforeseen injury and the allegedly faulty workmanship led to damage to other areas of the structure and thus damage beyond simply the cost to replace the defective roof.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Alexus Williams Receives Missouri Lawyers Media 2021 Women’s Justice Pro Bono Award

November 29, 2021 — Alexus Williams - Lewis Brisbois
St. Louis, Mo. (October 19, 2021) - St. Louis Associate Alexus Williams has received the Missouri Lawyers Media 2021 Women’s Justice Pro Bono Award, which honors women attorneys who have contributed significant effort and time to pro bono work. In connection with this honor, Ms. Williams was interviewed by Missouri Lawyers Media for its 2021 Women’s Justice Awards (WJA) supplement. In the article featuring Ms. Williams, the publication explained that she has “developed a reputation for helping others” and “has continually found ways to level disparities to make the system work for everyone.” For example, as a member of the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis Executive Committee’s Young Lawyers Division, Ms. Williams co-chaired a committee on racial equity during the civil unrest of 2020. Ms. Williams told Missouri Lawyers Media, “When I was looking at grad programs, law school was one that seemed like it kind of aligned with what I was passionate about, which was helping people, counseling people, being able to be of assistance in different kinds of situations.” She further noted, “Everyone has to play their part but also everyone needs the opportunity to play their part.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alexus Williams, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Williams may be contacted at Alexus.Williams@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

December 13, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Affirming the district court, the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the insured subcontractor was entitled to a defense against claims of faulty workmanship, but no defense was owed to the additional insured subcontractor. Cincinnati Spec. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. KNS Group, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27949 (11th Cir. Oct. 6. 2022).  The general contractor on a project to build a casino and hotel hired GM&P Consulting and Glazing Contractors, Inc. (GM&P) to provide exterior glazing for the building. GM&P enlisted subcontractor KNS to assist it by glazing glass and installing window walls. KNS agreed to provide commercial general liability and other types of insurance, and to indemnify GM&P for liability for damages caused by any of its acts or omissions. KNS acquired a policy from Cincinnati.  The casino filed suit against the general contractor and subcontractors, alleging that GM&P installed defective "Glass Facade" and improperly installed windows. GM&P filed a Hird-party complaint against KNS due to KNS's alleged defective construction of the casino. 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

---