SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

A “Flood” of Uncertainty; Massachusetts SJC Finds Policy Term Ambiguous

August 26, 2024 — Michael S. Levine & Torrye Zullo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The highest court in Massachusetts recently held that term “Flood” and the associated phrase “surface waters,” as used in two all-risk insurance policies, is ambiguous in the context of water that accumulated on a parapet roof and rooftop courtyard, thereby negating the insurers’ attempt to limit coverage to a sublimited coverage for “Flood.” Background In June 2020, a severe storm caused damage to Norwood Hospital, owned by Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (“MPT”) and leased to Steward Health Care System (“Steward”), the policyholders. The relevant portion of the damage included damage from rain that accumulated on the rooftop courtyard and seeped into the interior of the building causing damage to the building and its contents. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Torrye Zullo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Zullo may be contacted at tzullo@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

April 11, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided the case of Kirk v. Schaeffler Group USA, Inc., et al., a personal injury action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging injury resulting from the release of thousands of gallons of trichloroethylene (TCE) at the FAG Bearings Corporation’s (FAG Bearings) facility in Joplin, MO. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judicial estoppel ruling on the successor liability issue and concluded that the jury’s verdict on compensatory damages stands but their general verdict requires a new trial on Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim against FAG Bearings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity

July 22, 2019 — Edward J. Hermes - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction Blog
There are many legal issues to consider when bidding on and building projects in American Indian Country. Which labor and employment laws apply? Are there contracting or hiring preferences that apply? Do the Prompt Pay Act and other state laws apply? Can I bring a lawsuit to enforce the contract and, if so, where would I file suit? This article addresses the final question, which is often the most important question when contracting with a tribal entity. Many of the construction projects in American Indian Country are with tribes or entities wholly owned or by a tribe, such as housing authorities, casinos, hospitals, schools or other economic enterprises. Like the state and federal government, tribes (and their tribally—owned enterprises) enjoy sovereign immunity from any lawsuit, meaning they cannot be sued unless the tribe expressly agrees to waive its sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity poses a unique issue for contractors that does not typically arise in other projects, but it need not be a deterrent to doing business with tribes. It is usually in the best interest of both the contractor and tribe to negotiate an acceptable waiver of sovereign immunity. Absent such a waiver, the tribe or tribal entity cannot be sued and the resulting forfeiture of remedies can be devastating for the contractor. To waive sovereign immunity, the tribe must make it clear in the contract that it can be sued in a specific jurisdiction. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991). It does not matter whether the tribe is operating on or off its lands—if there is no express contractual waiver of sovereign immunity, a contractor will have no recourse in the event of non-payment or other breach of contract. See Kiowa tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Edward J. Hermes, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Hermes may be contacted at ehermes@swlaw.com

---

Iconic Seattle Center Arena Roof the Only Piece to Stay in $900-Million Rebuild

July 09, 2019 — Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-Record
The roof covering the under-construction Seattle Center Arena will remain. And it won’t move, even as contractors remake the entire arena beneath it. OVG-Seattle has started the task of remaking the city-owned structure—and the only major arena within a park in North America—into the home for the expansion NHL Seattle franchise and the start of the 2021 NHL season. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tim Newcomb, ENR
Mr. Newcomb may be contacted at

---

Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

November 13, 2023 — Yaron Shaham - Kahana Feld
In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com

---

Students for Fair Admissions: Shaking the Foundations of EEOC Programs and M/WBE Requirements

October 16, 2023 — Denise Farris Scrivener - The Dispute Resolver
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, holding that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 143 S. Ct. 2141, 216 L. Ed. 2d 857 (2023). On July 13, 2023, thirteen state Attorney Generals, relying on Students for Fair Admissions, issued a joint letter to the CEOs of the Fortune 100 companies, urging the elimination of all race-based programs in EEOC and government and private contracting. On July 19, 2023, a Tennessee district court judge issued an injunctive order against the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) application program on the basis of the program’s race-based presumption of disadvantage. Ultima Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 220CV00041DCLCCRW, 2023 WL 4633481 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2023). The message to be taken from these developments: all race-based programs and, by extension, potentially all gender-based programs—including ones that require or reward participation of Minority Business Enterprises (“MBE”) or Women Business Enterprise (“WBE”) in construction programs—currently stand on shaky ground. This post will explain the constitutional foundations at play, the decisions shaking things up, and why well-rounded dialogue is urgently needed to address the status of these programs before they’re dead in the water. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denise Farris Scrivener, Farris Legal Services LLC
Ms. Scrivener may be contacted at denise@farrislegal.net

---

New York Court Holds Radioactive Materials Exclusion Precludes E&O Coverage for Negligent Phase I Report

October 30, 2018 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Merritt Environmental Consulting Corp. v. Great Divide Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175527 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2018), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York had occasion to consider the application of a radioactive materials exclusion in a professional liability policy. Great Divide’s insured, Merritt Environmental, was hired as an environmental consultant by a bank in connection with a mortgage refinance of a property located in Westchester County, New York. Merritt’s responsibility was to prepare a Phase I environmental report concerning the property, which the bank ultimately relied on in agreeing to the refinance. It was later claimed, however, that Merritt’s report failed to document the full extent of the property’s radium and uranium contamination resulting from its use in the Manhattan Project. Merritt was named in two separate lawsuits as a result of its allegedly faulty report, including one by the bank alleging that Merritt negligently prepared its report. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

---

Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

February 27, 2019 — CDJ STAFF
On October 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) issued a decision which reversed an award of prevailing party attorneys’ fees to performance bond sureties in their dispute with a contractor arising from the contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. Had the lower court’s decision been affirmed, the performance bond sureties would have been able to recover prevailing party attorneys’ fees against the contractor even though they were not parties to the underlying subcontract and the subcontract did not contain a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision. The underlying case is complicated and arose from the construction of Brickell CityCentre in Miami. Americaribe-Moriarty JV (the “Contractor”) asserted a claim against a performance bond procured by a defaulted subcontractor and issued by International Fidelity Insurance Company and Allegheny Casualty Company (collectively, the “Sureties”). The Sureties filed a declaratory judgment action against the Contractor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “District Court”), seeking a declaration that the Contractor failed to perfect its claim against the performance bond. Reprinted courtesy of Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson and K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---