SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

September 21, 2020 — Jeff Clare - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the U.S. economy, restaurateurs and bar owners are feeling the brunt of business closures and adaptations necessary to combat the disease. Where cozy and intimate dining was once de rigueur for the restaurant industry, these businesses must now shift to outdoor dining with adequate space and airflow between parties. In response to these concerns, many cities across the country who once fought against the loss of any parking have turned to a post-automobile tactic: outdoor dining in thoroughfares and parking lots. While at first glance it might seem a simple enough prospect—throw some chairs and a table out front, and voilà—property owners and restaurateurs must remain cognizant of various liability and regulatory hurdles for operating outside. With Great Space Comes Great … Potential Liability. One of the largest concerns for landowners in operating in a new space for business is liability. Who is on the hook if someone gets hurt dining in an impromptu dining space in a parking lot? Prior to beginning new outdoor dining operations, landowners and restaurateurs should contact their insurance providers to ensure that the new space is included in their insurance coverage. This is a particular concern for larger commercial landowners who may have various businesses vying to use their parking lot for business. Many leases have carefully crafted clauses limiting where a business may operate and where their liability ceases. Landowners and business owners should review their leases for any such clauses and negotiate with one another to ensure that liability in these new spaces is clearly defined. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Clare, Pillsbury
Mr. Clare may be contacted at jeff.clare@pillsburylaw.com

---

California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State

October 14, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. (No. S239510, filed 8/29/19), the California Supreme Court held that California’s notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy in the insurance context, supporting the application of California law under a choice of laws analysis. In addition, the Court held that the rule generally applies to consent (aka “no voluntary payments”) provisions in first party insurance policies but not to consent provisions in third party liability policies. Pitzer College discovered soils contamination while building a new dormitory. Under pressure to complete construction before the start of the school year, Pitzer proceeded to remediate the soils, incurring $2 million in expense. Pitzer submitted a claim to Indian Harbor, which provided Pitzer insurance covering legal and remediation expenses resulting from pollution conditions discovered during the policy period. The policy contained a notice provision requiring Pitzer to provide oral or written notice of any pollution condition to Indian Harbor and, in the event of oral notice, to “furnish … a written report as soon as practicable.” In addition, a consent provision required Pitzer to obtain Indian Harbor’s written consent before incurring expenses, making payments, assuming obligations, and/or commencing remediation due to a pollution condition. The consent provision had an emergency exception for costs incurred “on an emergency basis where any delay … would cause injury to persons or damage to property or increase significantly the cost of responding to any [pollution condition],” in which case Pitzer was required to notify Indian Harbor “immediately thereafter.” Lastly, a choice of law provision stated that New York law governed all matters arising under the policy. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

October 09, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A wall built by J. F. Smith Construction collapsed during Hurricane Isaac, and Bankers Insurance Group is blaming the builder not the hurricane. The insurer claims that if the wall had been built properly it would have withstood the storm. The suit is being filed in the Louisiana courts. Bankers Insurance is seeking $49,625.25 in damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It

March 14, 2018 — Christopher Flavelle – Bloomberg
After last year’s calamity, officials are making the same decisions that put homeowners at risk in the first place. At the rugged eastern edge of Sonoma County, where new homes have been creeping into the wilderness for decades, Derek Webb barely managed to save his ranch-style resort from the raging fire that swept through the area last October. He spent all night fighting the flames, using shovels and rakes to push the fire back from his property. He was even ready to dive into his pool and breathe through a garden hose if he had to. His neighbors weren’t so daring—or lucky. On a recent Sunday, Webb wandered through the burnt remains of the ranch next to his. He’s trying to buy the land to build another resort. This doesn’t mean he thinks the area won’t burn again. In fact, he’s sure it will. But he doubts that will deter anyone from rebuilding, least of all him. “Everybody knows that people want to live here,” he says. “Five years from now, you probably won’t even know there was a fire.” As climate change creates warmer, drier conditions, which increase the risk of fire, California has a chance to rethink how it deals with the problem. Instead, after the state’s worst fire season on record, policymakers appear set to make the same decisions that put homeowners at risk in the first place. Driven by the demands of displaced residents, a housing shortage, and a thriving economy, local officials are issuing permits to rebuild without updating building codes. They’re even exempting residents from zoning rules so they can build bigger homes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Flavelle, Bloomberg

---

Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Jim Haugey, the Chief Economist for Reed Construction Data noted that new residential construction spending fell 0.2% in June and a slightly larger drop of 0.5% in residential remodeling. While economic growth is still low, Haugey states that homebuilders have “record low inventories.” He forecasts a shrinkage of 1.5% in 2011, followed by about 20% growth in 2012.

Read the full story…

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

---

2016 California Construction Law Upate

December 10, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The California State Legislature saw the introduction of 2,297 bills during the first half of the 2015-2016 legislative session of which 1,010 bills were signed into law. For contractors, the bill (now law), having the most immediate effect is SB 467, which increases the license bond amount required of all contractors from $12,500 to $15,000. In addition to licensing changes, 2015 saw the enactment of a number of bills providing for alternative project delivery methods from design-build, to CM at risk, to public-private partnerships, and even the expanded use of enhanced infrastructure financing districts as the state enters its fourth year since the abolishment of redevelopment agencies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Potential Problems with Cases Involving One Owner and Multiple Contractors

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Matthew Devries’ blog, Best Practices Construction Law, problems can arise in a case with one owner and multiple contractors: “Increasingly, two or more contractors may each have a separate contract with the owner for different portions of the work on a single project.” The problems occur when contractor responsibilities or storage sites become entangled, “for example, from one contractor’s storage of materials on a site where the other has work to perform, or from one contractor’s failure to progress with work that is preliminary to the other’s work.” Devries adds that in “addition to claims against the other contractor, claims may also be made against the owner for failure to coordinate the work.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

January 05, 2017 — Masaki J. Yamada – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Washington Courts allow an insurer to determine its duty to defend an insured against a lawsuit based only on the face of the complaint and the limitations of the insurance policy. This is otherwise known as the “eight corners” rule (four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). In other words, the insurance company is not permitted to rely on facts extrinsic to the complaint in order to deny its duty to defend an insured. See Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 763 (2002). The laws in Washington provide greater protection to the insured over the insurer when it comes to the insurer’s duty to defend. The duty to defend a claim is triggered if a claim could “conceivably” be covered under the policy. See Woo v. Fireman’s Insurance, 161 Wn.2d 43 (2007). If there is any ambiguity in a policy with regard to coverage, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured. As a result, contractors in Washington regularly tender claims or potential claims to their insurers even when damage has not occurred but will occur in the imminent future. Especially in the context of construction defect cases, a contractor will tender such a claim to its insurer to trigger the broad duty of the insurer to provide a defense. We also regularly recommend this to our contractor clients. For example, if a building owner serves a contractor with a claim that the construction and installation of a window system will imminently cause leaks and corrosion, we would recommend that the contractor tender the claim to its commercial general liability insurer. Washington courts have found a duty to defend when there are allegations in the complaint that covered damages will occur in the imminent future. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

---