Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence

August 06, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
When two boys drowned at a summer camp, the issue arose as to whether there were one or two occurrences. Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. AXIS Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13176 (8th Cir. July 11, 2014). The two boys could not swim, and their camp permission forms indicated that they were non-swimmers. One night, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) had a pool party. After the party, the FCA staff realized the two boys were missing. They had drowned, and their bodies were found lying side-by-side at the bottom of the deep end of the pool. The death certificate for one boy listed the time of death as 10:44 p.m., while the other boy's time of death was listed as 10:42 p.m. The FCA was insured under three policies. AXIS Insurance Company insured FCA under a CGL policy with $1 million limits per occurrence and $5 million in the aggregate. The FCA also had two umbrella policies, one issued by Ironshore Speciality Insurance Company, which provided up to $10 million in coverage in excess of Axis's policy. Under the second umbrella policy, RSUI Indemnity Company covered up to $5 million in excess of the Axis and Ironshore policies. 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

Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

January 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals predicted that the Wisconsin appellate courts would apply the continuous injury trigger to find coverage after the policy expired for damage caused by water infiltration. Strauss v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App LEXIS 21794 (7th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014). The insureds built their home in 1994. They purchased coverage for their home from Chubb. Coverage was in place from October 1994 through October 2005. The policy stated that coverage was limited "only to occurrences that take place while this policy is in effect." "Occurrence" was defined as "a loss or accident to which this insurance applies occurring within the policy period. Continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions unless excluded is considered to be one occurrence." In October 2010, the insureds discovered that water infiltration had been causing damage within the building envelope of the home. The infiltration was ongoing, beginning around the time of original construction and continuously occurring with each subsequent rainfall. Chubb denied coverage because the damage was not discovered during any of their policy periods. 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

Second Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of NY’s Zero Emissions Credit Program

November 21, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On September 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the “Zero Emissions Credit” (ZEC) program of the New York Public Service Commission is not unconstitutional. The case is Coalition for Competitive Electricity, et al. v. Zibelman, Chair of the New York Public Service Commission, et al. In effect, the ZEC program provides subsidies to qualifying New York nuclear power plants as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The ZEC program is intended to prevent nuclear plants from being prematurely retired from generating power until suitable replacement facilities are operating. 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

The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

February 14, 2022 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 7, 2021, the most recent proposed revision to the Clean Water Act’s term, “Waters of the United States” was published in the Federal Register. (See 86 FR 69372.) Comments on this proposal must be submitted by February 7, 2022. This term controls the scope of federal regulatory powers in such programs as the development of water quality standards, impaired waters, total maximum daily loads, oil spill prevention, preparedness and response plans, state and tribal water quality certification programs, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and the Corps of Engineers’ dredge and fill program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers have jointly drafted this comprehensive proposed rule, which also responds to President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, issued in January 2021. Background The agencies noted that they have repeatedly defined and re-defined “Waters of the United States” since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972. This level of sustained commitment is unique to this program, perhaps reflecting the importance of the programs that are implemented through the Clean Water Act. The most recent rulemaking efforts took place in 2015, 2017, 2020 and now 2022, and the Supreme Court has issued several landmark rulings in response to these efforts. See City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 US 304 (1981), United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 US 121 (1985), SWANCC v. United States, 531 US 159 (2001), Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (2006), National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 138 S Ct 617 (2018), and County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S, Ct 1462 (2020). The rules promulgated in 2015 and entitled, “Clean Water Act: Definition of Waters of the United States” expanded the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction, but the 2020 rule, entitled the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” contracted that scope. Now, the agencies have proposed the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” which will rescind the 2020 rule and inevitably restore something of the scope of the 2015 rule by returning to the familiar “1986 rules” that were issued by the Corps of Engineers in 1986 and EPA in 1988, as modified by the recent Supreme Court decisions mentioned above. Both the 2015 and 2020 rules were mired in litigation and the Corps and EPA view the resort to the 1986 rules as a fresh start for the Clean Water Act. In short, the topsy-turvy history of regulation under the Clean Water Act continues. 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

No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
Our post last week addressed the duty to defend when alleged faulty workmanship caused loss to property adjacent to where the insured was working. See Pamerin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wis. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012) [post here]. Today, we report on recent developments in the same case where the court determined, despite earlier finding the insurer owed a defense, it had no duty to indemnify. Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wisc. App. LEXIS 793 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2012). Hendricks contracted to “prepare the site and supply and install concrete, tamped concrete, and colored concrete” at several service stations. The owner sued Hendricks, alleging the concrete “was defective and/or the work performed was not done in a workman-like manner and resulted in damages, and will require replacement.” Pekin Insurance Company agreed to defend Hendricks subject to a reservation of rights. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

May 04, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
What you contractually agree to matters, particularly when you are deemed a sophisticated entity. This means you can figuratively live or die by the terms and conditions agreed to. Don’t take it from me, but it take it from the Fourth Circuit’s decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Modern Mosaic, Ltd. v. Turner Construction Co., 2019 WL 7174550 (4th Cir. 2019), where the Court started off by stressing, “One of our country’s bedrock principles is the freedom of individuals and entities to enter into contracts and rely that their terms will be enforced.” Id. at *1. This case involved a dispute between a prime contractor and its precast concrete subcontractor on a federal project. The subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. The trial court ruled against the subcontractor based on…the subcontract’s terms! So, yes, what you contractually agree to matters. Example #1 – The subcontractor fabricated and installed precast concrete panels per engineering drawings. However, the parking garage was not built per dimensions meaning the panels it fabricated would not fit. The subcontractor had to perform remedial work on the panels to get them to fit. The subcontractor pursued the prime contractor for these costs arguing the prime contractor should have field verified the dimensions. The problem for the subcontractor, however, was that the subcontract required the subcontractor, not the prime contractor, to field verify the dimensions. Based on this language that required the subcontractor to field verify existing conditions and take field measurements, the subcontractor was not entitled to its remedial costs (and they were close to $1 Million). Furthermore, and of importance, the Court noted that the subcontract contained a flow down provision requiring the subcontractor to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the prime contract and assume those duties and obligations that the prime contractor was to assume towards the owner. While this flow-down provision may often be overlooked, here it was not, as it meant the subcontractor was assuming the field verification duties that the prime contractor was responsible to perform for the owner. 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

Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

January 27, 2010 — Steven M. Cvitanovic

In the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.

In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.

Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is

Read the full story...

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Remodel Gets Pricey for Town

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Usually when home gets remodeled, it’s the homeowners who encounter unexpected expenses, but in Clearwater, Florida, it’s the town. Clearview has spent about $40,000 trying to determine if changes to a home are a “substantial improvement,” and the bill could get bigger, according to TBNweekly.com. The home in question, that of David and Aileen Blair, is in a flood zone, and city rules would require the alterations to comply with flood drainage-resistance provisions, but only if it is a “substantial improvement.” The Blairs applied for the remodel permit in April 2001, and it was granted more than 10 years later, in July 2011. Work started soon after until the city put a stop to it. The Blairs sued, claiming that as the city issued the permit, they assumed the plans were approved, and that the partially-completed renovation now diminishes the value of their home. The city has approved an additional $160,000 in outside legal counsel to respond to the Blair’s lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES