Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

December 02, 2015 — Leah B. Mason & Michael J. Worth – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Brady v. Calsol, Inc. 2015 No. B262028, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed summary judgment for a raw materials supplier where there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the benzene levels contained in the supplier’s mineral spirits could have caused plaintiffs’ leukemia. Plaintiffs were mechanics Ernest Brady and David Gibbs, who used Safety-Kleen solvent to degrease automotive parts. Brady and Gibbs were diagnosed with leukemia allegedly caused by exposure to Safety-Kleen solvent during the course of their employment. In 2008, Plaintiffs sued Calsol, Inc., a distributor of mineral spirits for the ultimate manufacturer, Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. Plaintiffs asserted negligence and strict products liability claims. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that benzene, a carcinogen found in mineral spirits, caused their leukemia. Benzene is only carcinogenic to humans at certain levels. The parties dispute the levels of benzene found in the mineral spirits supplied to Safety-Kleen. Calsol contended the benzene levels were present only in low concentrations. Plaintiffs alleged the benzene levels were capable of causing injury. Reprinted courtesy of Leah B. Mason, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Michael J. Worth, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Mason may be contacted at lmason@hbblaw.com Mr. Worth may be contacted at mworth@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?

September 17, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Insurance and indemnity are the primary risk management strategies on construction projects. Insurance, such as commercial general liability insurance, insures against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage, and in the case of builder’s risk insurance, insures against first party claims during construction. Indemnity, on the other hand, shifts liability from one party to another and can be broader than the types of claims covered by insurance although anti-indemnity statutes can limit the breadth of those claims. Sometimes though insurance and indemnity work in ways you might never have expected, like in the next case, Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., Case No. G049060 (July 2, 2015), in which the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held a subcontractor liable in the face of both an indemnity claim brought by a general contractor as well as a subrogation claim brought by the general contractor’s insurance company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

In their fourth quarter earnings call, executives of Hovnanian Enterprises made some projections for investors, covering the company’s plans for 2012. During the call, Ara K. Hovnanian, the firm’s CEO, discussed their reserves to meet construction defect claims. The firm does an annual actuarial study of their construction defect reserves.

Mr. Hovnanian noted that there have been no changes for the past several years, but this year they are increasing their reserves by about $6.3 million. Additionally, the firm has added $2.5 million to their legal reserves. Mr. Hovnanian stated “we do not anticipate that changes of this magnitude will be recurring as we look forward to 2012.”

Read the full story…

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

No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

January 28, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court followed precedent in Illinois and upheld the insurer's denial of coverage for construction defects that did not damage other property. Design Concrete Founds., Inc. v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 2014 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2684 (Ill Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2014). In 2005, the homeowners contracted with the general contractor to build a home. The general contractor hired Design to do the foundation work. Design performed its work in August 2005. After the work was completed, cracks formed in the foundation, allowing water to enter the basement and an inward shifting of the foundation. The homeowners sued the general contractor and Design. The complaint alleged that Design failed to build the foundation in a workmanlike manner, resulting in the development of cracks in the foundation. 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

Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

November 02, 2020 — Hugh D. Hughes - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The Hartford’s so-called virus exclusion in its commercial property forms is getting a workout, and policyholders now have an argument that may help their cases move past the pleadings stage. A U.S. District Court in Florida has deemed the exclusion ambiguous and denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss.1 The exclusion applies to “presence, growth, proliferation, spread, or any activity of ’fungi’, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.”2 The Court held that the parties did not necessarily intend to exclude a pandemic. In Urogynecology, the plaintiff sought coverage for the loss of the usefulness and functionality of its business location due to the Florida Governor’s shutdown order. The policy contained a 'fungi', wet rot, dry rot, bacteria, or virus” exclusion.3 The carrier moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff argued that the exclusion only applied if COVID-19 was present on-site, which was not the case. The Court addressed none of the issues regarding direct physical loss and instead decided the motion on the fungi exclusion. The Court held the exclusion ambiguous because the exclusion of virus “does not logically align with the grouping of the virus exclusion with other pollutants such that the Policy necessarily anticipated and intended to deny coverage for these kinds of business losses.”5 In addition, the Court stated that pollution case law was not on point because “none of the cases dealt with the unique circumstances of the effect COVID-19 has had on our society – a distinction this Court considers significant.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at hdh@sdvlaw.com

Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

October 26, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The history of asbestos regulation in the United States is complicated. Prior to the 1970s, asbestos-containing materials used in construction was widespread. In 1971, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an emissions standard for asbestos as part of the Clean Air Act. In 1972, the EPA extended this regulation to an occupational standard and, over the next decade, the EPA together with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a wide array of regulations aimed at asbestos. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds

March 30, 2020 — Ben Williams & MG Surety - Construction Executive
As COVID-19 continues to expand around the United States and the world, it may only be a matter of time before U.S. construction projects are affected by the virus. Performance bonds guarantee that a project will be completed by a contractor according to the contract. However, what if a contractor cannot complete a project on time due to widespread disease? What, if any, impact could the virus have on a contractor’s surety bond program? Risk Factors Several risks associated with the virus could trigger a performance bond claim. 1. Materials. The Chinese account for a large supply of construction materials, including steel, copper, cabinetry, etc. An inability to obtain these materials could significantly delay or stop a project all together. Even if a contractor is able to obtain them from other sources, it may be at a significantly higher cost than they put into the bid. 2. Labor. There is already a shortage of qualified labor in the construction industry. Additionally, construction already lends itself to the spreading of viruses; workers are often in close proximity, handling common materials, and they may not have an easily accessible place to wash their hands. Furthermore, even though many now have paid sick leave, there is often pressure not to use it. These things could magnify the labor shortage and make it difficult to complete projects on time. 3. Safety. Finally, the world is having a serious shortage of respirators. Because of widespread panic, many people have been purchasing N95 respirators—so much that the Surgeon General has asked people to stop buying them. It has created a shortage for people who really need them, like contractors. If contractors can’t get these safety masks, certain trades will either be unable to work, or risk continuing the project without masks, which would endanger workers and open them up to OSHA penalties. Reprinted courtesy of Ben Williams and MG Surety, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Williams may be contacted at benw@mgsuretybonds.com

Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer

February 01, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted summary judgment to the insurer based upon an endorsement which barred coverage for injuries to employees. Northfield Ins. Co. v. Z&J Mgt. LLC, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10801 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 18, 2020). Ravi Sooklal sued his employer, Z&J Management LLC (Z&J), for injuries at the job site. Northfield, who had issued a CGL policy to Z&L, denied coverage based upon two endorsements. The first was titled "Injury to Employees of Insureds" and the second was "Employers' Liability." Northfield sued for a declaratory judgment and now moved for summary judgment. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES