SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

When “Substantially Similar” Means “Fundamentally Identical”: Delaware Court Enforces Related Claim Provision to Deny D&O Coverage for Securities Class Action

August 10, 2021 — Geoffrey B. Fehling, Lawrence J. Bracken II & Lorelie S. Masters - Hunton Andrews Kurth
A company faces two class action lawsuits—filed by different plaintiffs, complaining of different allegedly wrongful conduct, asserting different causes of action subject to different burdens of proof, and seeking different relief based on different time periods for the alleged harm. Those facts suggest the suits are not “fundamentally identical,” but that is what a Delaware Superior Court recently concluded in barring coverage for a policyholder seeking to recover for a suit the court deemed “related” to an earlier lawsuit first made outside the policy’s coverage period. First Solar Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. N20C-10-156 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. June 23, 2021). The decision, which is not on all fours with some of the authority upon which it relies, underscores the inherent unpredictability of “related” claim disputes and need for careful analysis of the policy language against the factual and legal bases of the underlying claims. Underlying Shareholder Class Actions and D&O Claims Shareholders of solar panel manufacturer First Solar sued the company and its directors and officers in a class action lawsuit (the “Smilovits Action”) for the class period April 2008 to February 2012. The Smilovits Action asserted federal securities violations arising from First Solar’s alleged misrepresentations about the company’s business strategies, product design, financial strength, and ability to offer solar electricity at comparable rates to conventional energy producers (i.e., achieving “grid parity”), artificially inflated stock price, insider trading, manipulation of solar power metrics, and violations of GAAP accounting standards. First Solar submitted a claim to its D&O insurer, National Union, which provided coverage for the Smilovits Action and exhausted the policy. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Circuit Court Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

August 21, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventh Circuit determined it lacked appellate jurisdiction over an order issued by the district court compelling an appraisal. Breakwater Commons Association, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14459 (11th Cir. June 9, 2023). Following Hurricane Irma, Breakwater Commons Association filed a claim with Empire Indemnity Insurance Company for property damage. Empire agreed to cover some of the damage to buildings, but a dispute arose over the amount of loss. Breakwater sought to invoke the appraisal provision in the policy. Empire refused to engage in an appraisal. Breakwater sued, and filed a motion to compel appraisal and to stay the proceedings pending the completion of the appraisal process. 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

---

Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

February 05, 2024 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Strategist
In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 18 EAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 1715 (Dec. 22, 2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) clarified that in light of its decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 628 Pa. 296 (2014), evidence that a product complied with industry standards is inadmissible in an action involving strict product liability. In Tincher, the Supreme Court overruled prior case law and reaffirmed that Pennsylvania is a Second Restatement Jurisdiction. As stated in Sullivan, discussing Tincher, under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, a “seller of a product has a duty to provide a product that is free from ‘a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or [the consumer’s] property.’ To prove breach of this duty, a ‘plaintiff must prove that a seller (manufacturer or distributor) placed on the market a product in a “defective condition.”” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

---

It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

April 06, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It was a crazy week last week as the number of coronavirus cases in the United States jumped to 32,783 cases as of Sunday, from 3,680 cases, just a week before. In an attempt to “flatten the curve” and help those impacted by the virus, numerous federal, state, and local orders were issued, including orders requiring that residents “shelter in place.” For businesses impacted by the “shelter in place” orders, which, in California, means virtually every business in the state following Governor Newsom’s state-wide “shelter in place” order, there’s been confusion as to who can and can’t continue to work under the orders including among contractors and project owners. Although things have been changing, sometimes daily, here’s what you need to know about the “shelter in place” orders: The Local “Shelter In Place” Orders On Monday, March 16, 2020, six Bay Area counties, and the City of Berkeley, issued “shelter in place” orders requiring that residents in those counties and city shelter in place except for “Essential Activities,” if performing “Essential Governmental Functions,” or if operating “Essential Businesses.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Fire Consultants Cannot Base Opinions on Speculation

May 20, 2019 — Christopher Konzelmann - The Subrogation Strategist
Larsen v. 401 Main St. Inc., 302 Neb. 454 (2019), involved a fire originating in the basement of the Quart House Pub (Pub) in Plattsmouth, Nebraska that spread to and damaged Plattsmouth Chiropractic Center, Inc., a neighboring business. Fire investigators could not enter the building because the structure was unsafe and demolished. The chiropractic center nevertheless sued the Pub alleging that its failure to maintain and replace basement mechanical equipment caused ignition. To prove its claim, the plaintiff retained a mechanical engineer who reviewed documents and concluded that the fire “originated from a failure of one of the items of mechanical equipment located in the area of the [basement] boiler.” Importantly, however, the consultant could not determine the root cause of the fire, could not eliminate the possibility that the fire originated in a compressor, and could not rule out the building’s electrical service as the ignition source because it was outside his area of expertise. The consultant nevertheless found that the fire most likely would not have occurred if the Pub had regularly serviced and replaced the equipment when needed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Konzelmann, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Konzelmann may be contacted at konzelmannc@whiteandwilliams.com

---

A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

April 19, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The federal courts have issued some significant environmental law rulings in the past few days. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc. On March 4, 2021, the court held that the deliberative process privilege of the Freedom of Information Act shields from disclosure in-house draft governmental biological opinions that are both “predecisional” and deliberative. According to the court, these opinions, opining on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) effects on aquatic species of a proposed federal rule affecting cooling water intake structures—which was promulgated in 2019—are exempt from disclosure because they do not reflect a “final” agency opinion. Indeed, these ESA-required opinions reflect a preliminary view, and the Services did not treat them as being the final or last word on the project’s desirability. The Sierra Club, invoking the FOIA, sought many records generated by the rulemaking proceeding, and received thousands of pages. However, the Service declined to release the draft biological opinions that were created in connection with the ESA consultative process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Erdogan Vows to Punish Shoddy Builders Ahead of Crucial Election

April 25, 2023 — Selcan Hacaoglu - Bloomberg
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to punish breakers of construction-safety regulations in the wake of February’s deadly earthquakes, a move to distance himself from the devastation brought by tens of thousands of building collapses. “We will squeeze them into a corner,” Erdogan said in an interview with with CNN-Turk television late Wednesday. “It will be included in crimes that can’t be pardoned.” The aftermath of the Turkey earthquakes, which killed at least 50,000 people, has become a major talking point ahead of May 14 presidential elections. Erdogan is looking to extend his two-decade rule and is facing his toughest test yet from a united opposition, and critics say he is responsible for allowing builders to skip safety rules to win support in previous votes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Selcan Hacaoglu, Bloomberg

---

Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

January 21, 2019 — David R. Cook, Jr. - Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLP
During a storm, a tree landed on a homeowners house causing damage to the home’s foundation. Homeowners filed a claim on their homeowners insurance policy to recover the resulting damages. After homeowners and insurance company could not come to an agreement on value of the loss, homeowners filed a lawsuit. Homeowners presented the testimony of a contractor as an expert witness regarding the damage and the resulting loss of value. Contractor testified that the home value was reduced in half as a direct result of the damage to the home’s foundation. Insurance company sought to exclude the contractor’s testimony, arguing he was not qualified as an expert and did not apply appropriate methodology to reach his opinions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Jr., Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---