SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

How Algorithmic Design Improves Collaboration in Building Design

June 18, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Design, like everything else in a construction project, is a collaborative effort. Even with digital tools, collaboration across design disciplines is not yet optimal. An experimental project thus set out to test whether algorithmic design could help streamline the interaction between architects and structural engineers. Design data originating from an architect is used in several engineering tools for visualization, analysis, and calculation. Ideally, changes in the architect’s design would propagate automatically across all the software. Unfortunately, the process is in fact mostly manual. Hence, the design data is seldom, if ever, in perfect sync on all systems. 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

---

Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

April 08, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Bock v. Hansen (No. A136567, filed 4/2/14), a California appeals court held that an adjuster employed by an insurer can be sued personally for falsely representing that a first party claimant's policy does not cover a loss. In Bock, a 41-foot long, 7,300 pound tree limb crashed onto the insureds' home, damaging the roof, chimney, living room walls, windows and floors. The assigned adjuster was alleged to have engaged in "appalling" conduct, including instructing the insureds to clean up the damage themselves (leading to personal injury); denying that the tree cracked the chimney; insulting and disparaging the insureds; altering the scene before taking photographs; misrepresenting the terms of the policy; preparing false claim reports; conspiring with a contractor to prepare an intentionally false report; and knowingly relying on the false report in order to deny a legitimate claim. The homeowners sued the insurer and named the adjuster personally on causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the adjuster demurred arguing that he could not be sued personally because, as an employee of the insurer, he owed no duty to the insureds. The adjuster relied on Sanchez v. Lindsey Morden Claims Services, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 249 and Lippert v. Bailey (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 376, to argue that employees and agents of insurers cannot be held personally liable since, under the law of agency, the proper cause of action is against the principal and not the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion

September 28, 2020 — Jeffrey J. Vita & Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In Nagog Real Estate Consulting Corp. v. Nautilus Insurance Co.,1 the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that an insurer had no duty to defend its insureds against claims brought by an injured subcontractor, based on an overbroad employer’s liability exclusion in the policy. Nautilus Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to developer Nagog Homes LLC and its related construction company, Nagog Real Estate. The policy was endorsed with an Employer’s Liability Exclusion (the L205 Endorsement) that expanded the scope of the standard exclusion in the coverage form to include bodily injury claims of employees of “any” insured and their contractors or subcontractors, as opposed to simply the employees of the named insured. Nagog Homes was the developer, and Nagog Real Estate was the general contractor for a residential construction project. An employee of the framing subcontractor hired by Nagog Real Estate was injured while working on the project and sued both Nagog entities for his injuries. Nautilus, relying on the modified employer’s liability exclusion, denied coverage for the lawsuit based on allegations that the Nagog entities hired the framing subcontractor to perform work, which effectively made the plaintiff an employee of one or both of the Nagog entities. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita , Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

March 04, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held last week in Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co. that two insurers must contribute proportionally to the defense of an additional insured under their comprehensive liability policies. In 2008, torrential rainstorms battered the Milwaukee area for two days. The downpour overwhelmed the city’s sewer system, causing significant flooding in homes throughout the region. Out of those floods sprang several lawsuits against the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (“MMSD”) for negligent inspection, maintenance, repair, and operation of Milwaukee’s sewage system. MMSD was an additional insured under liability policies covering two other water service providers responsible for the city’s sewer systems. The first policy was issued by Greenwich Insurance Company for United Water Services Milwaukee, LLC, and the second was issued by Steadfast Insurance Company for Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC. After learning of the lawsuits, MMSD tendered its defense of the sewage suits to both insurers. Steadfast accepted the defense; but Greenwich refused, claiming that its policy was excess to Steadfast’s based on an “other insurance” clause in Greenwich’s policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

March 22, 2021 — Arezoo Jamshidi, Stevie B. Newton & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (B302344, Mar. 3, 2021), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), addressed an issue of first impression: whether the purported acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“section 998”) offer lacking an acceptance provision gives rise to a valid judgment. The appellate court held that a section 998 offer to compromise (“998 Offer”) without an acceptance provision is invalid and any judgment stemming from it is void. In Mostafavi Law Group, plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation per se, among other claims, which was litigated at-length over several years. Defendants served plaintiffs with a written 998 Offer, offering to settle the action for the sum of $25,000.01. The 998 Offer did not specify the manner in which plaintiffs were to accept the offer. Within the statutory time period for acceptance, plaintiffs’ counsel hand-wrote the following onto the 998 Offer: “Plaintiff Mostafavi Law Group, APC accepts the offer.” That day, plaintiffs also filed a notice of acceptance of the 998 Offer, along with proof thereof, and sent a copy to defendants. The next day, having received the notice of acceptance, defendants advised plaintiffs that they would “draft and send . . . a settlement agreement for . . . signature” before paying the settlement funds. Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Stevie B. Newton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Newton may be contacted at snewton@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter

May 13, 2019 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
With the explosion of the “private” rental business wherein residential property owners rent their house or condo on a short-term basis to third-parties, certain legal issues have arisen with regard to the duties owed by the property owner to the renter. A recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Haynes-Garrett v. Dunn, 818 S.E.2d 798 (Va. 2018), addressed that issue. In that case, the property owners owned a rental house in Virginia Beach. The property was not the owners’ main residence, but rather a vacation home that was sometimes used by the owners, but mostly used as a rental. The issue addressed by the court was whether – for the purpose of evaluating the owners’ duty of care to the renter – the relationship should be classified as a “landlord-tenant” relationship or an “innkeeper-guest” relationship. This classification was important because the duties of the owner to the renter were significantly different depending on the category. In the landlord-tenant arena, under Virginia law, the landlord has no duty to maintain the property in a safe condition because the property is deemed to be under the tenant’s exclusive control. (An exception being concealment or fraud by the landlord as to some defect in the premises that is known to the landlord but unknown to the tenant.) Assuming that exception does not apply, the tenant takes the premises in whatever condition they may be in, thus assuming all risk of personal injury from defects or dangerous conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

---

Microsoft Said to Weigh Multibillion-Dollar Headquarters Revamp

September 17, 2015 — Dina Bass & Hui-Yong Yu - Bloomberg
Microsoft Corp. is considering a multibillion-dollar revamp of its headquarters campus in suburban Seattle, seeking to foster more collaboration among employees and attract young engineers, according to people with knowledge of the plans. The software giant has hired architecture firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP as part of the effort at its Redmond, Washington, offices, said the people, who asked not to be named because the plans aren’t public. Skidmore Owings designed Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building, and is helping Microsoft with a makeover of its much smaller campus in Mountain View, California. Microsoft hasn’t yet decided whether to move forward with the Redmond overhaul, said one of the people familiar with the matter. Reprinted courtesy of Dina Bass, Bloomberg and Hui-Yong Yu, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Estoppel Certificate? Estop and Check Your Lease

May 06, 2019 — Lauren Podgorski - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
If you are leasing space in a building, there may come a time when you receive a request from your landlord to fill out and sign an estoppel certificate. Estoppel certificates are usually sent to tenants in connection with the sale or refinance of a building, and a third party may rely on the accuracy of the statements and information contained in the estoppel certificate in connection with that transaction. Estoppel certificates can range from a very simple, one-page document, to several pages. I’ve received an estoppel certificate in the mail. What do I do now? Consider the following: Check your lease. Your lease may require you to deliver the signed estoppel certificate and may even give you a timeframe within which you are required to return it. A form of estoppel certificate may also be included in your lease as an exhibit. If you’ve previously agreed to a form of estoppel certificate in your lease, check to ensure the one you have received matches the form you previously agreed to and if it doesn’t make sure to review it carefully to make sure it is acceptable. Review the estoppel certificate and confirm that all of the information is accurate. Be on the lookout for any terms or provisions that you did not agree to in your lease. If it seems like the landlord is trying to modify your lease, you likely do not need to consent to the change in this document. Cross off (or modify or delete, if you have an electronic copy) any information that is inaccurate. Fill in all blanks (if the blank is not applicable, write “N/A”), and if any exhibits are referenced in the body of the document, make sure they are actually attached. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lauren Podgorski, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Podgorski may be contacted at lpodgorski@swlaw.com

---