Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

June 15, 2011 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP

On June 1, 2011 by majority vote, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 474, which would amend Civil Code section 2782, and add Civil Code section 2782.05. The passage of this new law is a critical development for real estate developers, general contractors and subcontractors because it will affect how these projects are insured and how disputes are resolved.

Civil Code section 2782 was amended in 2007 to prohibit Type I indemnity agreements for residential projects only. Since 2007, various trade associations and labor unions have lobbied to expand those very same restrictions to other projects. These new provisions apply to contracts, entered into after January 1, 2013, that are not for residential projects, and that are not executed by a public entity. The revisions provide that any provision in a contract purporting to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend another for their negligence or other fault is against public policy and void. These provisions cannot be waived.

A provision in a contract requiring additional insured coverage is also void and unenforceable to the extent it would be prohibited under the new law. Moreover, the new law does not apply to wrap-up insurance policies or programs, or a cause of action for breach of contract or warranty that exists independently of the indemnity obligation.

The practical impact of this new law is that greater participation in wrap-up insurance programs will likely result. While many wrap-up programs suffer from problems such as insufficient limits, and disputes about funding the self-insured retention, the incentive for the developer or general contractor to utilize wrap-up insurance will be greater than ever before because they will no longer be able to spread the risk of the litigation to the trades and the trade carriers.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.

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

No Coverage for Roof Collapse During Hurricane

January 29, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the insured's roof collapse was not covered. Exclusive Real Estate Inv., L.L.C. v. S.G.L. No. 1, Ltd., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29368 (5th Cir. Nov. 3, 2023). A building owned by Exclusive Real Estate partially collapsed during a rain-storm. The insurer, SGL, inspected the roof and determined that there was no coverage. Exclusive sued SGL for breach of contract and bad faith. SGL moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the district court. Exclusive appealed. The poicy covered "direct physical loss to the property" caused by windstorms. Exclusions, however, precluded coverage for losses "caused by rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust unless the direct force of wind or hail damages the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening." 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

Contractor Disputes Report Amid Amazon Warehouse Collapse Lawsuit

May 02, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A contractor facing a lawsuit related to the December partial collapse of an Amazon.com Inc. warehouse that was hit by a tornado is pushing back on claims in a fire marshal’s report that highlighted possible “significant structural issues” with the building. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Home Forward, the housing authority in Multnomah County, Oregon, is suing Tom Walsh & Company over allegations of construction defects in low-income housing projects the firm built for the county. Walsh’s firm was hired about ten years ago to construct apartments in Portland and adjacent Gresham. But the housing authority claims that the buildings are suffering water damage. The authority requested that Tom Walsh & Company repair the problems. Walsh claimed that the problems were not due to construction defects, but to the agency’s failure to maintain the properties. Home Forward has gone forward with lawsuits of a combined $3.8 million. If the case goes to trial, according to Walsh, it will be only the second time for him in 50 years of business. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

April 20, 2017 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Unlike previous research into construction fatalities, a new review of three years of Labor Dept. data found that most occur between 10 am and 3 pm, with a peak at noon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

Florida's New Pre-Suit Notification Requirement: Retroactive or Prospective Application?

February 05, 2024 — Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Florida’s newly formed Sixth District Court of Appeal (“Sixth DCA”) recently certified conflict with Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal on the issue of retroactive application of the pre-suit notice requirement contained in Florida Statute §627.70152.1 Earlier this year, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) held that the pre-suit notice provision applies retroactively, meaning, it applies to all suits filed after July 1, 2021, regardless when the insurance policy was issued.2 The Sixth DCA, in Hughes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company,3 directly rejected the Fourth DCA’s interpretation and instead found a retroactive application of the pre-suit notice to be unconstitutional under Florida law. Prior to the Fourth DCA’s ruling, most trial courts had found no retroactive application for the pre-suit notice provision.4 In August 2021, shortly after Florida Statutes Section 627.70152 went into effect on July 1, 2021, Rebecca Hughes (“Hughes”) sued Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal Property”) for breach of contract after Universal Property denied her insurance claim. Hughes did not file a pre-suit notice under Section 627.70152. Universal Property moved to dismiss based on Hughes’ failure to file the pre-suit notice, arguing that the pre-suit notice requirement applies to all lawsuits filed after July 1, 2021, even if the claimant’s insurance policy was issued before the statute’s effective date. The trial court agreed with Universal Property and dismissed the lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com

Insurer Could Not Rely on Extrinsic Evidence to Circumvent Its Duty to Defend

February 14, 2023 — Lorelie S. Masters & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In First Mercury Insurance Co. v. First Florida Building Corp., et al., a federal district court ordered that an insurer had a duty to defend its insured against an underlying personal injury lawsuit. 2023 WL 23116, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2023). First Mercury is a cautionary tale about how insurers may try to circumvent their obligations by improperly considering extrinsic evidence when determining whether they have a duty to defend their insureds. First Mercury is a coverage dispute over an underlying personal injury lawsuit that was filed against the insured, a construction company, for injuries the claimant allegedly sustained at a construction site. Id. The claimant alleged that he was at the construction site as an invitee who was “working with” the insured. Id. The insurer agreed to defend the insured against the personal injury lawsuit under a reservation of rights. Id. However, the insurer filed a coverage action seeking a declaration that coverage for the personal injury lawsuit was excluded under the policy. Id. Specifically, the insurer, on summary judgment, argued that the claimant was an employee of the insured who was injured in the course of his employment, thus falling within the employer’s liability and workers’ compensation exclusions in the policy. Id. Although the insurer acknowledged that the personal injury complaint against the insured triggered its duty to defend under the policy, the insurer argued that those exclusions relieved its duty to defend or indemnify the insured. Id. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

March 04, 2019 — Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
The implied warranty of habitability allows a homeowner to recover damages for latent defects that interfere with the intended use of a home. In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, 2018 Ill. LEXIS 1244 (2018), the Supreme Court of Illinois held that buyers of new homes cannot assert claims for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against subcontractors involved in the construction of the homes because the subcontractors have no contractual relationship with the homeowners and the damages are purely economic. As the court explained, the implied warranty of habitability is a creature of contract (not tort) and, therefore, only exists when there is contractual privity between the defendants and the homeowners. In Sienna, a group of condominium unit owners alleged that their new homes contained latent construction defects and asserted claims against the various parties involved in the construction and sale of the homes, including claims against the defendant subcontractors for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The plaintiffs contracted with the property developer to purchase the homes, but the plaintiffs had no contractual relationship with the subcontractors involved in the construction of the homes. The Sienna court, overturning the decisions of the trial court and the appellate court, granted the subcontractors’ joint motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for the implied warranty of habitability because the plaintiffs had no contractual relationship with the subcontractors and the damages were purely economic. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES