Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

June 06, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee. In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in San Bernardino, California. A 13-year-old student subsequently sued the company in state court, alleging that she had been sexually molested by a company employee, Hecht. Among others, she alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee. The construction company tendered to Liberty, which defended the employer under a reservation of rights while seeking declaratory relief in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, ruling that the injury was not caused by an “occurrence.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court as a matter of state law. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

January 15, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's failure to verify that subcontractors had CGL policies and to provide a contract stating that the subcontractors would indemnify the insured as required by the policy's endorsement meant there was no coverage for the insured. Cincinnati Spec. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Milionis Constr., Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199658 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 26, 2018). The homeowners filed suit against Milionis, the general contractor for construction of a home. The underlying suit alleged that Milionis breached the parties' agreement by leaving the home unfinished. Cincinnati defended Milionis under a reservation of rights. 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

Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

August 07, 2023 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is excited to announce Las Vegas Partners Devin Gifford and Madeline Arcellana have been selected in the 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyers list as Rising Stars for their work in Civil Litigation. To read Super Lawyers’ digital publication, please click here. SELECTED AS RISING STARS Devin Gifford: 2023 Madeline Arcellana: 2023 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

January 20, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the federal Miller Act, if a claimant is NOT in privity with the prime contractor, it needs to serve a “notice of nonpayment” within 90 days of its final furnishing. In this manner, 40 U.S.C. 3133 (b)(2) states: A person having a direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship, express or implied, with the contractor furnishing the payment bond may bring a civil action on the payment bond on giving written notice to the contractor within 90 days from the date on which the person did or performed the last of the labor or furnished or supplied the last of the material for which the claim is made. The action must state with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the material was furnished or supplied or for whom the labor was done or performed. The notice shall be served–

(A) by any means that provides written, third-party verification of delivery to the contractor at any place the contractor maintains an office or conducts business or at the contractor’s residence; or (B) in any manner in which the United States marshal of the district in which the public improvement is situated by law may serve summons.

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

San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

October 26, 2017 — Michael C. Parme – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Dryden Oaks, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority et al.(D068161, filed 9/26/17, publication order 10/19/17), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that the County of San Diego (County) and the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (Authority) were entitled to summary judgment on a developer’s “disguised taking” theory of inverse condemnation. In 2001, the developer purchased two large lots (designated Lot 24 and Lot 25) adjacent to the end of a runway at the Palomar Airport in Carlsbad. Plaintiff obtained the necessary permits from the City of Carlsbad and successfully completed construction of an industrial building on Lot 24 in 2005. However, the plaintiff never began development of Lot 25 and the building permit for the property expired in 2012. The developer was then unable to renew the building permit because the Authority had adopted the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in the interim period, which reclassified the Lots as part of a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The developer received a letter explaining that “despite the earlier approval the proposed development was no longer feasible because the ALUCP was more restrictive than the prior compatibility plan and the application's proposed use of ‘research and development’ was not permissible.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com

Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

October 02, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Neighbors of the Sky Hotel in Aspen, Colorado, filed suit against the owners “alleging that the construction project will impede access to their units and steal their airspace,” reported the Aspen Daily News Online. The problem, the plaintiff suit alleges, is that the Sky’s plan would close the “east-west alley,” which is also used by the condo complex: “Owners, renters and guests mainly use the alley, which is configured for one-way traffic entering on Durant Avenue and exiting at Original Street, to access their condos in the Chaumont, says the 12-page complaint filed by local attorney Jody Edwards.” The plaintiffs are demanding that the plan be voided or at least require the issues in the suit to be addressed. They are also seeking attorney and other costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

August 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that cosmetic damage to the insured's roof was covered. Advance Cable Co., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9805 (7th Cir. June 11, 2015). The insured submitted a claim to its insurer, Cincinnati, for damage to the metal roof of its building caused by a hail storm. The insured inspected the roof with a claims representative for Cincinnati. Dents were spotted, but there was little other evidence of damage. The loss was estimated at $1,894.74. A check for this amount was sent to the insured. Six months later, the insured considered selling the building. A potential buyer inspected the roof and found hail damage. At the request of the insured, Cincinnati conducted another inspection of the roof. Again, dents of approximately 1 inch in diameter were found. The inspector noted that the denting would not affect the performance of the roof panels or detract from their life expectancy. 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

Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of North Dakota has ruled in Leno v. K & L Homes, affirming the verdict of the lower court. K & L Homes argued that district court had erred in several ways, including by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, denying a request for inspection, and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during jury viewing.

The Lenos purchased a home constructed by K & L Homes, after which they alleged they found cracks, unevenness, and shifting, which they attributed to improper construction. They claimed negligence on the part of K & L Homes. K & L Homes responded that the Lenos were responsible for damage to the home. The Lenos dropped their negligence claim, arguing breach of contract and implied warranties.

Before the trial, after the discovery period had passed, K & L Homes requested to inspect the home. This was rejected by the court. Kelly Moldenhauer, the owner of K & L Homes sought to testify about his observations during the jury’s viewing of the house. The court denied this too. The jury found that K & L was in breach of contract and awarded damages to the Lenos.

The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that K & L Homes gave “warranties that the home had been built according to local building codes and laws, and that the house was fit for its particular purpose as a residence.” The court found that a defective home breached this warranty. Further, the home violated an implied warranty of fitness.

The district court had denied K & L’s request to inspect the home, as the discovery period had ended and it would not give the Lenos time to do further discovery of their own. At the time of the request, there was only twenty-two days before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an abuse of discretion of the part of the district court.

The Lenos had requested that Moldenhauer’s testimony not be permitted, as it would “have the same effect as if the court had granted K & L Homes’ pretrial request for inspection.” K & L Homes agreed to this in court, replying, “okay.”

The decision affirms the judgment of the district court and the damages awarded to the Lenos by the jury.

Read the court’s decision…

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES