Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Extrinsic Evidence, or Eight Corners? Texas Court Sheds Light on Determining the Duty to Defend

December 18, 2022 — Nathan A. Cazier - Payne & Fears
Last year, the Texas Supreme Court adopted a narrow exception to the state’s eight-corners rule, and allowed the consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine the duty to defend. The exception arguably raised more questions than it resolved. Last month, a Texas federal court answered some of these questions by rejecting an insurer’s attempt to introduce extrinsic evidence under the newly minted exception. Texas permits few, if any, deviations from its eight-corners rule, which determines an insurer’s duty to defend by only considering the operative pleading and the terms of the policy, without any regard to extrinsic evidence or facts. This protects policyholders by erring on the side of defending claims, even if coverage is questionable. In Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp., 640 S.W.3d 195, 199 (Tex. 2022) (“Monroe”), the Texas Supreme Court adopted an exception to the eight-corners rule, holding that extrinsic evidence may be considered when an “information gap” between the pleading and the policy makes it impossible to determine coverage, but only in limited scenarios where the extrinsic evidence (1) goes solely to an issue of coverage and does not overlap with the merits of liability, (2) does not contradict facts alleged in the pleading, and (3) conclusively establishes the coverage fact to be proved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears
Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

June 21, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court. The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well. Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote: “The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’” 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

U.S. Home Sellers Return for Spring as Buyers Get Relief

February 10, 2014 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
Suzanne Baker and her siblings bought a foreclosed home in Atlanta two years ago, added a fourth bathroom, then waited for values to rebound before considering a sale. Now, she says, they’re ready to cash in. The family last month listed the four-bedroom house in the affluent Buckhead neighborhood for $710,000. It was purchased as an investment for about $375,000 in late 2011, before bulk buyers snapped up many of the area’s distressed homes, helping to drive up prices in Atlanta by more than 25 percent. “The market is back up,” Baker said. “We think we can make a good amount of profit so we’re going to try.” For two years, a shortage of sellers like the Bakers has propped up prices across the U.S. as shoppers jostled for a dwindling supply of houses. Now, as the market’s busiest season approaches, escalating values are spurring more listings as homeowners regain equity lost in the worst crash since the 1930s. While new-home construction at a third of its 2006 peak will keep inventory tight, the supply increase is poised to damp price gains while higher mortgage rates cut into demand. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

5 Questions about New York's Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act

February 14, 2022 — Richard W. Brown & Michael V. Pepe - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On December 31, 2021, New York enacted the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (“CIDA”), requiring defendants to provide plaintiffs with “complete” information for any insurance policy through which a judgment could be satisfied, within sixty (60) days after serving an answer. The stated goal is to reduce delay tactics by compelling disclosures of all policies implicated by a claim as well as other claims, contracts, or agreements that may deplete available coverage or residual limits of policies that have already been eroded by other payments. The impact of CIDA’s disclosure requirements may be scaled back by proposed amendments currently pending before the New York state legislature. 1. What does CIDA Require? CIDA requires the automatic disclosure of insurance information to plaintiffs. New York’s Civil Practice Law & Rules (“CPLR”) 3101(f) permits civil discovery of the contents of existing insurance agreements by which an insurer may be liable for all or part of a judgment. However, CIDA amends the CPLR to mandate that defendants must automatically disclose the following information in all pending cases starting March 1, 2022, or within sixty (60) days of filing an answer to a complaint going forward:

Complete copy of all insurance policies that are available to satisfy all or part of a potential judgment.

This includes Primary, Excess, and Umbrella policies.

The relevant applications for insurance.

Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Triable Issue of Fact Exists as to Insurer’s Obligation to Provide Coverage Under Occurrence Policy

March 08, 2021 — Valerie A. Moore & Kathleen E.M. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Guastello v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co. (No. G057714. filed 2/19/21 ord. pub. 2/23/21), a California appeals court held that triable issues of material fact exist which precluded summary judgment for an insurer seeking to disclaim coverage on the basis that the “occurrence” pre-dated the policy period where a dispute exists as to the timing of the subject “occurrence.” In Guastello, a subcontractor built retaining walls from 2003 to 2004 for a housing development in Dana Point, California. In 2010, one of these retaining walls collapsed causing damage to a residential lot owned by Thomas Guastello. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kathleen E.M. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kemoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

July 13, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown. An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:

In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.

U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).

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

Residential Construction Rise Expected to Continue

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Housingwire reports that Fannie Mae has predicted strong increases in housing starts over the last few years, with an expected return to normal by 2016. If this holds true, residential construction will include 2.5 million jobs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

August 01, 2023 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
In a recent case—United States ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland (“Dickson”)—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently re-examined and defined what work qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. United States ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, No. 21-160, 67 F.4th 182 (4th Cir. April 26, 2023) (slip op.). Unlike private projects, unpaid subcontractors cannot encumber the federal government’s property with mechanics liens. Instead, the Miller Act provides a remedy for subcontractors in the form of a payment bond on all federal public works contracts exceeding $100,000. 40 U.S.C. § 3131(b). In the Dickson case, Claimant Elliot Dickson served as a subcontractor to Forney Enterprises (“Forney”), with whom the Department of Defense (the “DOD”) contracted to renovate several staircases and the fire suppression systems at the Pentagon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Conway & Mrowiec Attorneys LLLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bjw@cmcontractors.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES