Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.

First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”

The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”

Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”

The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”

Read the court’s decision…

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

Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

June 15, 2020 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
I am back. It feels like an entirety since I last posted. But a hellacious trial schedule got me off the blogosphere for some time. Plus, there was nothing to write about. But I am back with a bang thanks to a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning the interplay of a forum selection clause appearing in an arbitration clause in a construction contract and the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. In Bauguess Electrical Services, Inc. v. Hospitality Builders, Inc., the federal court (Judge Joyner) ruled that the federal arbitration act preempted the Payment Act’s prohibition on forum selection clauses and held that an arbitration must proceed in South Dakota even though the construction project were the work was performed was located in Pennsylvania. The Payment Act applies to all commercial construction projects performed in Pennsylvania. As some you might know, Section 514 of the Payment Act, 73 P.S. 514, prohibits choice of law and forum selection clauses. It states “[m]aking a contract subject to the laws of another state or requiring that any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process on the contract occur in another state, shall be unenforceable.” Therefore, if a construction contract is for a project located in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania law must apply and all disputes must be adjudicated in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Construction Robots 2023

May 08, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Here’s AEC Business’s catalog of construction robotics companies. About Construction Robotics Construction robots have been around since the 1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s, Japanese companies such as the Shimizu Corporation, Obayashi Corporation, and Takenaka Corporation created robots and remote-controlled machines for excavating, material handling, concrete placing, finishing, fireproofing, earthworks, rebar placing, and other construction tasks. However, the overall robotization of the industry has been slow. The rapid development of artificial intelligence and machine learning has changed the robotic scene. Robotic hardware is also becoming affordable. Coupled with the poor availability of professional construction workers and the urge to industrialize construction, the use of robots will inevitably increase in the coming years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement

November 18, 2024 — Mark Chediak - Bloomberg
Hawaiian Electric Industries formalized a $2 billion agreement to settle damage claims from a wildfire that razed the historic town of Lahaina and killed more than 100 people. The utility-owner had reached a tentative agreement in August in which it, along with other defendants including the state of Hawaii, Maui County and landowners, would pay $4 billion to resolve hundreds of lawsuits stemming from last year’s wildfire, according to a filing Tuesday. The settlements don’t resolve claims with insurers that are part of separate lawsuits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg

How Will Today’s Pandemic Impact Tomorrow’s Construction Contracts?

October 26, 2020 — Levi W. Barrett, Nathan A. Cohen & Mark A. Snyder - Peckar & Abramson
The emergence of COVID-19 has created a new set of challenges in the already complex world of negotiating construction contracts. In the pre-COVID-19 era, general contractors, construction managers and those negotiating on their behalf, needed to balance a variety of fairly well-established legal risks and exposures and commercial realities with the need to maintain a positive relationship with their counterparty. While many are rightfully concerned with addressing the impacts of COVID-19 to their on-going projects, those negotiating new contracts now are undoubtedly cognizant that they are negotiating in the midst of an unpredictable future that is tipping the historical negotiating balance. The following presents some crucial areas to focus on when negotiating and drafting your contracts in this new era. Contract Terms Through the COVID-19 Lens Contractors should examine proposed new contracts carefully to identify rights that afford COVID-19 protections and identify contractual obligations that create COVID-19 commercial risks. Specific attention should be paid to those sections relating to force majeure/excusable delay, emergencies, changes (including changes in law), contingency, suspension and termination, site investigation as well as all representations and warranties. The paramount concern in examining these provisions is to ensure that they not only entitle the contractor to relief for those unknown events, emergencies and changes, but that they also contain sufficient entitlement for the contractor to obtain both time extensions and financial compensation for unknown impacts of a known event – the COVID-19 pandemic. Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.and Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Understanding the Limits of Privilege When Applied to Witness Prep Sessions

January 28, 2025 — Stu Richeson - The Dispute Resolver
In my last post, Ethical Limits on Preparing a Witness for Deposition or Trial, I took a brief look at the ethical limits on preparing a witness for trial or deposition. This post will continue on that theme and examine the scope of privilege in connection with preparing witnesses for deposition and trial. Typically, a meeting with a client or client representative to prepare deposition or trial testimony will be covered by attorney-client privilege. Both the communications between an attorney and the client or client representative in preparation to testify are privileged as are the documents provided by the attorney to the client to review in preparation for testify.[i] That privilege will typically apply to all employees of a corporate client, not just the control group or high-level management of the corporation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Riess LeMieux
Mr. Richeson may be contacted at sricheson@rllaw.com

Toll Brothers Climbs After Builder Reports Higher Sales

February 26, 2015 — John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Toll Brothers Inc., the largest U.S. luxury-home builder, rose the most in a year after the company reported a higher-than-expected quarterly profit and said it sold more properties at higher prices. Net income for the three months through January was $81.3 million, or 44 cents a share, compared with $45.6 million, or 25 cents, a year earlier, the Horsham, Pennsylvania-based builder said in a statement Tuesday. The average of 14 estimates was for 28 cents a share, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net

Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

June 29, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit faced unusual facts in determining that the collapse of a cave serving as a storage facility was not covered under the policy. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Interstate Underground Warehouse & Storage, Inc., 2020 U. S. App. LEXIS 83 8th Cir. Jan. 3, 2020). Interstate operated an underground storage facility in a cave that formerly housed a limestone mine. In 2014, Interstate experienced a series of "dome-outs," in which layers of rock destabilized, detached, and collapsed from above into the cave. Interstate's policy with Westchester included coverage for collapse of a "building" caused by "building decay." Westchester sought a declaratory judgment that Interstate's loss was not covered. The district court granted summary judgment for Westchester because the cause of the loss was not "building decay" within the meaning of the primary policy. 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