Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

July 15, 2019 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
For nearly 36 years, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) severely frustrated, if not all but foreclosed, a property owner’s right to bring a claim in federal court based on a regulatory taking. Under the Fifth Amendment, a property owner whose land has been “taken” by the government is entitled to just compensation. There are two types of takings direct or “inverse” or regulatory takings. A direct taking is where the government declares that it needs your land for public use and offers to pay you compensation. You might disagree with the amount offered – and that often is the case. But, a mechanism exists whereby a neutral third party – a condemnation board – will arrive at the compensation that is owed. On the other hand, an inverse condemnation or regulatory taking occurs when the government takes some action that restricts the use of the land in such a way as to severely impact it beneficial economic use. For example, if you own a strip of commercial property and intend to develop it and then the municipality comes along and suddenly changes the zoning classification of the parcel such that you can no longer develop it in a beneficial way, then you might have a regulatory takings case. Under the Court’s Williamson County decision, property owners falling within the later category were required to exhaust state remedies before proceeding to federal court under a claim that their Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The problem with this is that, as the Supreme Court explained, it creates a Catch-22. If property owners exhaust their state remedies and the state remedies result in an unfavorable outcome, the federal court is powerless to overturn that decision under the doctrines of res judicata and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Well, yesterday, the Court overturned Williamson County, in Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. _____ (2019). There the Court held unequivocally a “property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under Section 1983 at that time.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

April 11, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Interpreting Hawaii law, the federal district court held that the standard for triggering the duty to defend is the same as the standard for the duty to advance costs under a D&O policy. Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56949 (D. Haw. April 3, 2018). The underlying plaintiffs sued 22 defendants, including Maui Land Pineapple (MLP) and Ryan L. Churchill, concerning a residential development project known as The Ritz-Carlton Club & Residences. The underlying complaint alleged that MLP "directly or indirectly through wholly owned subsidiaries exerts control" over Kapalua Bay, LLC, the defendant in the underlying lawsuit. Kapalua Bay, LLC was created as a joint venture of which MLP held 51%. Churchill was a senior executive officer of MLP, President of Kapalua Bay, and an executive officer of Kapalua Realty, which participated in all aspects of the Project, such as financing, development, and construction. In their second amended complaint, the underlying plaintiffs alleged nine Counts against the defendants, including breach of fiduciary duty. It was alleged that defendants were not transparent and kept owners in the dark regarding the status of the project. Several allegations named Churchill individually and described his alleged material misrepresentations to the underlying plaintiffs regarding the project's financing. 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

Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith

June 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Sixth Circuit rejected the insurer's claim for reverse bad faith against its insured who made a fraudulent claim after her home was destroyed by fire. State Auto Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hargis, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7475 (6th Cir. April 23, 2015). The insured's home burned to the ground early one morning. She filed what she would later admit was a fraudulent insurance claim with State Auto for approximately $866,000. State Auto paid in excess of $425,000 before filing an action to declare the policy void. State Farm's investigation eventually led to the insured's admission that she had a friend burn down her house to collect insurance proceeds. An indictment was issued and the insured pled guilty. She was sentenced to a 60-month term and was ordered to pay restitution to State Auto totaling $672,497. 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

Court Addresses When Duty to Defend Ends

August 24, 2020 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo E. Meta - White and Williams
There are certain generally held principles regarding an insurer’s duty to defend. One of these principles is that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured if the complaint states a claim that potentially falls within the policy’s coverage. However, there is a lack of consistency regarding the point at which the insurers’ duty to defend ends. When the only potentially covered claim has been dismissed, must the insurer continue to defend? Certain jurisdictions, such as Hawaii and Minnesota, have held that an insurer’s duty to defend continues through an appeals process, or until a final judgment has been entered, disposing of the entire case. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company v. Bank of Hawaii, 832 P.2d 733 (Haw. 1992); Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Company, 559 N.W. 2d 411 (Minn. 1997). Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania took a different approach to this question in Westminster American Insurance Company v. Spruce 1530, No. 19-539, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106534 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2020) – holding that the trial court’s dismissal of the only potentially covered claim was sufficient to terminate Westminster’s duty to defend. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Margo E. Meta, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

EPA Issues New PFAS Standard, Provides $1B for Testing, Cleanup of 'Forever Chemicals'

April 29, 2024 — Tom Ichniowski & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
The Biden administration has announced a two-pronged initiative aimed to reduce exposure, through drinking water, to the “forever chemicals”—perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and other health problems. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

September 10, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Douglas v. Fidelity National Ins. (No. A137645; filed 8/29/14), a California appeals court held that it was a jury question whether a retail insurance service with limited binding authority should be deemed a broker or an agent for the purpose of determining if application misrepresentations would void coverage. In Douglas, the homeowners needed insurance for a house they had used as a group home. They sought coverage from Cost-U-Less, which provided personal lines insurance from, among others, Fidelity National Insurance Company. According to the couple’s wife, she went to a Cost-U-Less office where she answered application questions from a person on the telephone, who was later identified as an employee of another company, InsZone. InsZone had a producer contract with Fidelity. In practice, InsZone would be contacted by Cost-U-Less via telephone, at which point an InsZone employee would verbally solicit information from the client, with the information being entered into a computer by the InsZone employee and then transmitted electronically to Fidelity. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. 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

Thousands of London Residents Evacuated due to Fire Hazards

June 29, 2017 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Nearly 4,000 residents were ordered by municipal authorities to “urgently evacuate apartments in five London high-rise buildings…after fire inspectors warned that the safety of the residents could not be guaranteed,” reported the New York Times. Displaced families were urged to find shelter with family or friends, but temporary accommodations were offered. Repairs may take up to four weeks. The five London towers that were evacuated all contain the same exterior cladding and insulation that is similar to what was used in Grenfell Tower, where 79 people died in fire only the preceding week, according to the New York Times. Camden Council stated that the cladding material would be removed. They had ordered noncombustible cladding, but later learned that combustible cladding had been installed. “Preliminary tests on the insulation samples from Grenfell Tower show that they combusted soon after the test started,” Detective Superintendent McCormack said in a televised statement, as quoted by the New York Times. “Cladding tiles had also failed initial tests,” she continued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Mexico's Richest Man Carlos Slim to Rebuild Collapsed Subway Line

November 01, 2021 — The Associated Press - Bloomberg
Mexico City (AP) -- Mexico’s richest man reached an agreement with Mexico City authorities Wednesday to rebuild or reinforce an elevated subway line that collapsed in May, killing 26 people. Telecom and construction magnate Carlos Slim said his Grupo Carso’s construction subsidiary would pay the cost of rebuilding the span that collapsed, and reinforcing other parts of the elevated line to meet higher standards in a city plagued with severe earthquakes. Grupo Carso said in a statement to the country’s stock market that the outlay did not constitute any admission of responsibility for the collapse, and would not “materially affect” the company’s business. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES