SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

June 12, 2014 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. and Kacey R. Riccomini, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
The Second District Court of Appeal’s recent decision, Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216, immediately affects builders and contractors (collectively “builders”) who are often named as additional insureds (AIs) to contractors’ general liability policies. The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder. The salient aspects of the facts, the Appellate Court’s reasoning, and practical considerations are discussed below. Transport Insurance Company (Transport) issued a commercial excess and umbrella liability policy (Policy) to Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), naming R.R. Street & Co., Inc. (Street) as an AI for its distribution of a solvent. The Policy provided that Transport would indemnify and defend the insured for loss caused by property damage if (1) it was not covered by “underlying insurance” but was within the terms of coverage of the Policy, or (2) if the limits of liability of the “underlying insurance” were exhausted during the Policy period due to property damage. The Policy included a Schedule of Underlying Insurance (Schedule) that listed policies issued to Vulcan. Thereafter, Vulcan and Street were named as defendants in several environmental contamination actions (Underlying Actions). Transport brought a declaratory relief action against Vulcan regarding Transport’s duty to defend. (Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (Legacy Vulcan) (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677). The trial court found the term “underlying insurance” ambiguous as it was not expressly defined to include only the policies on the Schedule and could be interpreted to include all primary policies in effect. Vulcan challenged the trial court’s decision by petition for writ of mandate, contending “underlying insurance” only included policies listed on the Schedule. The Court of Appeal found “underlying insurance” ambiguous because it was an expressly qualified term under other Policy provisions but not in the umbrella coverage provision and, thus, it was a generic term that was not limited to policies listed in the Schedule or inclusive of all primary insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto and Kacey R. Riccomini Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com; Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com, and Ms. Riccomini may be contacted at kriccomini@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Best Lawyers Recognizes Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Honors Four Partners as ‘Lawyers of the Year’

September 19, 2022 — Lewis Brisbois
(August 18, 2022) - Best Lawyers has selected 149 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 46 offices for inclusion in its list of 2023 Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized four Lewis Brisbois partners on its "Lawyers of the Year" list: Chairman & Founding Partner Robert F. Lewis (Insurance Law); Portland Managing Partner Eric J. Neiman (Litigation - Health Care); Akron Managing Partner David Kern (Tax Law); and Roanoke Partner Paul C. Kuhnel (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants). Please join us in congratulating these four partners and the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition.

• Nashville Partner Tara Aaron-Stelluto: Copyright Law
• Pittsburgh Partner Andrew F. Adomitis: Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
• Fort Lauderdale Partner Vincent F. Alexander: Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
• Miami Partner Seth Alhadeff: Litigation - Insurance
• Seattle Partner Randy J. Aliment: Commercial Litigation
• Phoenix Partner Dina Anagnopoulos: Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
• Madison County Partner Charles S. Anderson: Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
• Reno Managing Partner Jack G. Angaran: Insurance Law, Litigation – Construction, Litigation - Real Estate

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

---

Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

July 14, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Recently, I participated in a roundtable hosted by JAMS with experienced South Florida construction lawyers and retired circuit court judges to discuss the pros and cons of utilizing an initial decision maker (“IDM” and also referred to as a project neutral) or a dispute resolution board (“DRB”) to resolve disputes on construction projects. The IDM and DRB are designed to resolve disputes, specifically claims (whether for time, money, or both), during construction to keep the project progressing forward without being bogged down by the inevitable claim. There are numerous avenues to resolve disputes without resorting to filing a lawsuit or a demand for arbitration. The thought is that dispute resolution will be facilitated by techniques designed to assist the parties with the resolution of claims during construction. While direct discussions between the parties, meetings with the executives for business decision purposes, mediations, etc., are certainly helpful, sometimes these avenues are simply not enough to truly resolve a complex claim on a construction project that occurs during construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Dispute Resolution in Your Construction Contract

February 07, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are important provisions in your construction contract that are geared towards dispute resolution. These are provisions you want to understand – not when a dispute arises, but BEFORE the dispute ever occurs. Many times, dispute resolution provisions are cast aside or not appreciated until a dispute rears its ugly head. This can put you in a reactive stance versus a proactive stance, which you want to be in, because you want to proactively make sure all rights are preserved relative to the dispute. You want to proactively make strategic decisions based on the dispute resolution provisions and process in your contract. Before your contract even gets signed, you may want to negotiate aspects of the dispute resolution process for many reasons. The process could be one-sided. It could be onerous. It could be complex. It could be unfavorable or costly with respect to how you want to progress a dispute. If you appreciate the dispute resolution process from the get-go, you will be in a more effective position to navigate the process while ensuring you are preserving your rights moving forward. 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

---

Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

October 19, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
You may have thought that a Virginia “Little Miller Act” bond claim, like a mechanic’s lien, could only be brought by those that provide materials and labor incorporated into the construction project. If you did, you aren’t alone. In fact, Safeco Insurance Co. of America, a surety, made exactly the above argument in Yard Works LLC v. GroundDown Constructors LLC. In that case, a debris hauling company failed to pay Yard Works, the company that provided the dumping site for the debris. Yard Works sued pursuant to the Little Miller Act to get paid. In response, the surety sought to have the claim against the payment bond dismissed and argued that because Yard Works did not actually improve the property or provide improvements and that Yard Works only passively provided a dump site, Yard Works could not claim under the payment bond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

A WARNing for Companies

March 13, 2023 — Abby M. Warren & Sapna Jain - Construction Executive
Since last fall, news of layoffs in the technology sector have set off a ripple effect in a variety of other industries. Companies engaging in layoffs must be thoughtful and prepared when it comes to taking such action. While the construction industry generally has one of the highest layoff rates, and human resource personnel may be very knowledgeable with regard to related risks and exposure, there are a number of additional issues to consider when there are mass layoffs or closings. Further, expensive litigation awaits if companies are not meticulous in complying with state and federal laws regarding such large scale reductions in force. Under federal law, the primary legislation governing mass layoffs and closing is the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act which generally covers employers with 100 or more employees. This law was enacted to protect employees by requiring companies to provide 60 days’ notice to employees in advance of certain plant closings and mass layoffs. In addition, many states, such as California, Connecticut and New York, have enacted similar state laws, referred to as “mini-WARN” laws, which impose additional requirements, including increasing the length of the required advance notice and broadening the scope of employers to which the law applies. Reprinted courtesy of Abby M. Warren and Sapna Jain, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

John Boyden, Alison Kertis Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

July 25, 2022 — John Boyden & Alison Kertis - Lewis Brisbois
Reno, Nev. (June 16, 2022) – Reno Partner John Boyden and Associate Alison Kertis were recently named to Nevada Business Magazine's 2022 list of "Top Rank Attorneys." Formerly known as "Legal Elite," this annual list represents the top talent in the legal industry across the State of Nevada. According to Nevada Business Magazine, thousands of attorneys are nominated for the list and then scored based on the number and type of votes they receive, with votes from outside an attorney's firm receiving more weight. Finally, before being added to the list, the attorneys, and the votes they receive, go through several levels of verification and scrutiny, with each ballot individually reviewed for eligibility and every voting attorney verified with the State Bar of Nevada. The magazine has published this list for the past 15 years. Reprinted courtesy of John Boyden, Lewis Brisbois and Alison Kertis, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Boyden may be contacted at John.Boyden@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Kertis may be contacted at Alison.Kertis@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

U.S. Army Corps Announces Regulatory Program “Modernization” Plan

August 03, 2022 — Karen Bennett - Lewis Brisbois
Washington D.C. (June 17, 2022) - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Army recently announced plans to amend the Corps Civil Works program to better serve Indian nations and other disadvantaged and underserved communities. 87 Fed. Reg. 33758 (June 3, 2022). Comments are due by August 2, 2022. Several items warrant attention. The first are changes to Corps regulations on implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, or the Act) (33 CFR 325, Appendix C). Proposed options include suspension of the Corps’ Appendix C regulations and adoption of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) regulations. Congress established the ACHP, an independent agency whose mission is to provide the President and Congress with advice as to policies and programs on historical preservation. The NHPA authorized the Council to promulgate regulations establishing procedures for evaluating the effect of a federal action on historic property. The Act also provides that a federal agency may promulgate its own regulations, consistent with the Council’s regulations. Where an agency has its own regulations, courts have consistently held that the agency’s regulations govern decision-making, provided they are not inconsistent with the Part 800 regulations. Most courts have generally regarded an agency’s regulations as inconsistent when they are less restrictive procedurally than the Council’s. Until today, the Corps has defended Appendix C and interim guidance (issued in 2005 and 2007) as consistent with the NHPA and specifically tailored for use in the Corps regulatory program. The announcement marks a significant directional change and gives the ACHP a larger role in Corps regulatory decisions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com

---