Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

May 13, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It was a bizarre confluence of events. Jorgen Stufkosky was driving on SR-154 in Santa Ynez, California. Martha Aguayo was driving on the same highway ahead of Stufkosky when she struck a deer causing it to fly across the centerline into traffic from the opposite direction. The deer struck a SUV causing its driver to lose control. The driver of the SUV crossed the same centerline where he collided head on with Stufkosky, killing him. Stufkosky’s children later sued the California Department of Transportation in the case Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, 97 Cal.App.5th 492 (2023), alleging that their father’s death was due to Caltrans’ negligent design of SR-153, inadequate number of deer crossing signs, and its high posted speed limit. While in the trial court, Caltrans filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Caltrans was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the so called “design immunity” statute. The trial court agreed and the Stufloskys appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Marlena Ellis Makes The Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022

January 17, 2023 — Marlena Ellis - White and Williams LLP
In just her first year of practice, Marlena Ellis, Associate, is included in the Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022. Marlena joined the firm in 2021 as a full-time associate practicing both Commercial Litigation, Insurance Coverage, and Bad Faith Practice. She advises a variety of clients including corporations, commercial entities and insurance companies in complex disputes and breach of fiduciary duty matters. The Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022 honors junior and mid-level attorneys of color who exemplify integrity, leadership, and a passion for diversity in their roles. The selection committee spent months reviewing nominations to identify the right candidates for the list, and Marlena was one of the few chosen for this year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marlena Ellis, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Ellis may be contacted at ellism@whiteandwilliams.com

On to Year Thirteen for Blog

January 13, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Insurance Law Hawaii hits twelve years of existence this week, 1347 posts later. We started in December 2007. We continue in order to keep up on developing issues in insurance law. We strive to keep readers abreast of new developments in cases from Hawaii and across the country. Other Damon Key blogs to check out are inversecomdemnation.com [here] authored by Robert Thomas, Mark Murakami's oceanlawhawaii.com [here] and hawaiiconstructionlaw.com [here] by Anna Oshiro. 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

Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

September 07, 2020 — Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
The Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.) In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies. Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.” A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot. The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy. The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG. Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status. Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy. In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy. Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered. Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
Ms. Ward may be contacted at dward@bph-law.com

Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

June 06, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The district court accepted the magistrate's recommended ruling denying the insurer's motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and bad faith claims in a case involving collapse. Jang v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51880 (D. Conn. March 27, 2018). After purchase of their home, the insureds' inspector found large cracks in the foundation. Liberty denied coverage, contending that the basement wall was collapsing due to settling earth or movement. The insureds' expert later found the foundation had cracks from the oxidation of iron sulfide minerals in the foundation's concrete. The insureds sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practice Act and the Unfair Trade Practices Act. 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

Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

January 31, 2018 — Sean Minahan – Construction Contract Advisor
According to a quick Google search the term “holding the bag” comes from the mid eighteenth century and means be left with the onus of what was originally another’s responsibility. Nobody wants to be left holding the bag. But that is the situation our client (subcontractor) found themselves in when upon completion of a public project the general contractor went out of business before paying the remaining amount due and owing to our client. Under Nebraska law, liens are not allowed against public projects. Instead the subcontractor is to make a claim on the payment and performance bond secured by the general contractor at the start of the project. In our case, the general contractor never secured a bond on which to make a claim; consequently, leaving our client holding the bag. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Minaham, Lamson, Dugan and Murrary, LLP
Mr. Minahan may be contacted at sminahan@ldmlaw.com

What is a Personal Injury?

September 03, 2019 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Essentially, a personal injury is when an individual is hurt during an accident. Whether driving on the road, walking down the street, or sitting in a chair, accidents happen. When there is an accident, medical treatment may be necessary. Individuals who sustain injuries usually seek compensation for their medical treatment and pain and suffering in the form of a personal injury lawsuit. Personal injury lawsuits can result from a variety of claims including negligence, strict liability, or intentional torts. Yet, for the most part, personal injury lawsuits tend to arise from a claim of negligence. The individual or entity injured in the accident, “Plaintiff”, files a lawsuit against the individual or entity, “Defendant” who allegedly caused harm. Personal injury lawsuits resulting from claims of negligence tend to have two main components: liability and damages. Yet, in order to prevail in a suit for negligence, a Plaintiff must demonstrate the following: (1) a legal duty to use due care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a reasonably close, causal connection between that breach and Plaintiff’s resulting injury, and (4) actual loss or damage to Plaintiff. Wylie v. Gresch (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 412. First, a finding of negligence rests upon a determination that the actor has failed to perform a duty of care owed to the injured party. Ronald S. v. County of San Diego (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 887. This means that an individual or entity must act reasonably to avoid injuring others. When an injury occurs, a Plaintiff will generally argue that an individual or entity breached a duty owed to them. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
San Diego Source reported that “CIT Real Estate Finance provided…$60 million…to refinance existing debt and fund the renovations at Torrey Pines Court,” a five-building Class A office campus located in La Jolla, California. The 206,128 square foot complex, which resides on 9.24 acres, is adjacent to the Torrey Pines Golf Course. CIT has funded the project in partnership with Rockwood Capital and The Muller Company. "We are excited to begin renovations that will complete our repositioning of Torrey Pines Court with state-of-the-art office space and amenities,” David Streicher, Partner at Rockwood Capital, stated according to a press release in the Wall Street Journal. “We expect that the renovations, coupled with the project's picturesque setting, will solidify Torrey Pines Court's position as the preferred office destination in the submarket. We thank CIT for working with us to create a sound financing package that will take this project to the next level." Read the full story, San Diego Source... Read the full story, Wall Street Journal... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES