SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Construction Litigation Roundup: “How Bad Is It?”

September 25, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
How bad is it? “Not that bad,” said an Illinois federal court to a surety which was complaining that its subcontract performance bond terms had not been satisfied by the obligees on the bonds (the general contractor and the building owner). In response to $3.6 million demand by the obligees on the performance bond, the surety filed an action in federal court in Illinois seeking to have the court declare that the surety had no further obligation on its performance bond. The surety urged that the obligees had not fulfilled the prerequisite requirements in the bond to make a claim on the bond (which, although the court never identified the bond form, was a bond form that closely resembled the AIA A312-2010 performance bond). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies

July 20, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On May 26, 2020, a California Court of Appeals (4th District) issued its decision in Mosley et al. v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. The case arose in the context of a marijuana-growing tenant who rerouted a home’s electrical system and caused an electrical fire. The issue was whether the homeowner’s policy covered the loss. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and, in a divided decision, the Court of Appeals reversed in part. The policy excluded losses “resulting from any manufacturing, production or operation, engaged in … the growing of plants.” The parties agreed that the fire resulted from the rewiring of the electrical system, but disagreed on “whether that means the damage” “result[ed] from” “the growing of plants.” The Court held that “resulting from” “broadly links a factual situation with the event creating liability, and connotes only a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship.” In doing so, it equated the terms “results from” and “arising from.” Concluding that a “common sense” approach was to be used, it found a “minimal causal connection” to be present. This expansive standard could be beneficial to policyholders in arguing the causal connection between COVID-19 and ensuing business interruption losses; specifically, that the pandemic, a covered event, is the underlying and proximate cause of the insureds’ physical loss and/or damage and the insured’s resulting business interruption loss, and that intervening events, whether they be orders of civil authority, prevention of ingress/egress or otherwise, would not sever the chain of causation. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Maria Latest Threat to Puerto Rico After $1 Billion Irma Hit

September 20, 2017 — Brian K. Sullivan & Ezra Fieser - Bloomberg
Hurricane Maria was on course to hit Puerto Rico just two weeks after Irma caused as much as $1 billion in damages on the bankrupt island. Maria’s top winds were at 155 miles (250 kilometers) an hour, the National Hurricane Center said in a notice around 6 a.m. New York time. At Category 5, the strongest classification on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale, Maria was about 35 miles southeast of San Juan in Puerto Rico. Reprinted courtesy of Brian K. Sullivan, Bloomberg and Ezra Fieser, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects

June 28, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
A prior post here discussed the Tenth Circuit's decision in Greystone Constr., Inc. v. National Union Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F. 3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011). The court found a duty to defend construction defect claims where damage caused by the faulty workmanship was unintentional. The Tenth Circuit remanded for a determination on whether any policy exclusions precluded a defense or indemnity for damage arising from faulty workmanship. On remand, the district court denied National Union's Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to establish the policy exclusions precluded its duty to defend and to indemnify. See Greystone Constr., Inc. v. v. National Union Fire & Marine ins. Co., 2013 U. S. LEXIS 46707 (D. Colo. March 31, 2013). Greystone was sued for construction defects in homes it built. The suit alleged that Greystone failed to recognize defects in the soil where the house was built. National Union refused to defend. The district court initially granted summary judgment to National Union because claims arising from construction defects were not covered. As noted above, the Tenth Circuit vacated because the damage in the underlying suit did not categorically fall outside coverage under the policy. On remand, National Union first argued there was no duty to defend based upon an exclusion precluding coverage for damage arising out of work done by subcontractors unless the subcontractors agreed in writing to defend and indemnify the insured and carried insurance with coverage limits equal to or greater than that carried by the insured. The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument because National Union had to rely on facts outside of the underlying complaint. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

September 04, 2018 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. BrassCraft Mfg., Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88986 (D.R.I. May 29, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island addressed the question of whether the defendant was so unfairly prejudiced by the subrogating insurer’s spoliation of evidence that dismissal of the plaintiff’s case was the appropriate Rule 37(b)(2)(a)(i)-(vi) sanction. The court, focusing on the potential for undue prejudice to the defendant, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams, LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

October 10, 2013 — W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
The Colorado Court of Appeals has decided a case which answers a question long in need of an answer: do banks/lenders have standing to assert construction defect claims when they receive title to a newly-constructed home following a foreclosure sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure? The decision was released on August 1, 2013, in the case of Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC v. Hepworth-Pawlack Geotechnical, Inc., Steve Pawlak, Daniel Hadin, and S K Peightal Engineers, Ltd. (Colorado Court of Appeals No. 13CA0519). The background facts of the case are typical of a Colorado residential construction defect case generally. A developer contracted for an analytical soil engineering report from a geotechnical engineering firm (H-P) which made a foundation recommendation. The developer’s general contractor then retained an engineering firm (SPKE) to provide engineering services, including a foundation design. The general contractor built the foundation in accordance with the H-P and SPKE criteria and plans. The house was not sold by the developer and went into default on the construction loan. These events resulted in a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure to a bank-controlled entity which purchased the house for re-sale. Shortly after receiving the developer’s deed, the bank-related entity discovered defects in the foundation that resulted in a construction defect suit against the two design firms and related individuals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

---

Almost Nothing Is Impossible

October 30, 2018 — Brian N. Krulick - Smith Currie
In today’s ever-changing legal and political climate, contractors are being forced to deal with events and circumstances that seemed improbable just a short time ago. These changing circumstances have led some contractors to question whether they are required to continue performing in the face of uncertainty and, in many cases, potentially large losses. The doctrines of impossibility and impracticability, if proven, can serve as powerful defenses and excuse performance of a construction contract. However, contractors should exercise great caution before relying on these defenses as an excuse for nonperformance, as the consequences of stopping work without proper justification can be disastrous. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian N. Krulick, Smith Currie
Mr. Krulick may be contacted at bnkrulick@smithcurrie.com

---

A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher

February 27, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As those who read Construction Law Musings on a regular basis know, mechanic’s liens are a big part of my construction law practice. These tricky and strictly enforced statutory collection tools are very powerful when correctly recorded and utterly useless if they aren’t recorded in a timely fashion and with the correct information contained within them. Couple that fact with recent changes to the mechanic’s lien form in 2019, and I feel the need to give a quick refresher. If you’ve kept up with Musings, you know about the two big numbers for Virginia mechanic’s lien timing, 90 and 150. These should be kept in mind for every general contractor, subcontractor, or supplier on any construction project in Virginia. Virginia Code Section 43-4 sets out the reasons to keep these numbers in mind. The code section sets out why you need to know these numbers. The 90 refers to the deadline for recording a lien. This number affects the right to a lien in Virginia. In order to preserve lien rights, a construction contractor must record the lien within ninety days of the last day of the last month in which the last work was performed or no later than ninety days from the date of completion of the project or other termination of work. The short version is that most general contractors on commercial projects have 90 days from the last work in which to record their lien and most subcontractors have 90 days from the last day of the last month of work. However, the best practice is to simply calculate the 90 days from the last work performed or material supplied to avoid issues and arguments between attorneys regarding timing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---