SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

January 21, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court as follows:

Under Washington law, is an insurer bound by representations made by its authorized agent in a certificate of insurance with respect to a party's status as an additional insured under a policy issued by the insurer, when the certificate includes language disclaiming its authority and ability to expand coverage?

T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co lf Am., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31863 (9th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018). In 2010, T-Mobile entered into a Field Services Agreement (FSA) with Innovative Engineering, Inc. under which Innovative would provide services in connection with the construction of rooftop cellular antennae towers in New York City. The FSA required Innovative to maintain general liability insurance naming T-Mobile as an additional insured, and required that Innovative provide T-Mobile with certificates of insurance documenting the coverage. Innovative obtained coverage from Selective Insurance Company of America. 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

---

American Council of Engineering Companies of California Selects New Director

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Brad Diede has been selected as the new executive director of the American Council of Engineering Companies of California, according to GlobeSt.com. “ACEC California is dedicated to strengthening the engineering and surveying professions, protecting the general public and promoting the use of the private sector in building a better California.” Paul Meyer is retiring after 32 years as the executive director. Diede brings over ten years’ experience as executive director of the California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors. He will begin work at ACEC California January 27th. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

July 01, 2019 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
The surety bond industry regularly reminds state and local governments, politely, that public works in all states must involve surety bonds. That’s the law. And the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, the bond brokers and agents trade group, has been letting state and local officials know, in writing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

---

Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

March 29, 2017 — Brooke E. Beebe, Esq. - Florida Construction Law News
The situation is one all too familiar to construction defect litigants. A homeowner contracts with a roofing contractor to install a new roof with a life expectancy of ten years.[1] After only five years, the homeowner brings a claim for construction defects in the roof alleging that the roof requires complete replacement due to water intrusion. The homeowner seeks damages for the full replacement cost of the roof. However, under a “useful life” theory, the homeowner would not be entitled to damages for the full amount of the replacement cost. Instead, the homeowner would be entitled to one-half of the cost of the replacement roof, taking into account the fact that he or she had been deprived of only five, rather than ten, years of use. “Useful life” is best understood as the expected length of time that a newly built construction element can be reasonably anticipated to last, subject to routine maintenance and ordinary wear and tear. The “useful life” theory holds that granting the homeowner damages for the full replacement cost of the roof would result in unjust enrichment to the homeowner, who had contracted for a roof with a ten-year, rather than a fifteen-year, useful life. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brooke E. Beebe, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Ms. Beebe may be contacted at brooke.beebe@csklegal.com

---

Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

November 21, 2017 — Jesse Witt - The Witt Law Firm
Originally published by CDJ on September 7, 2017 Colorado’s new construction defect law officially takes effect this month. Although HB 17-1279 was passed in May, the statutory text provides that it only applies “with respect to events and circumstances occurring on or after September 1, 2017.” With that date now upon us, practitioners should be mindful of the law’s new requirements. The law applies to any lawsuit wherein a homeowner association files a construction defect action on behalf of two or more of its members. “Construction defect action” is defined broadly to include any claims against construction professionals relating to deficiencies in design or construction of real property. Before an association may commence such an action, its board must follow several steps. First, the board must deliver notice of the potential construction defect action to all homeowners and the affected construction professionals at their last known addresses. This requirement does not apply to construction professionals identified after the notice has been mailed, or to construction professionals joined in a previously-approved lawsuit. The notice must include a description of the alleged construction defects with reasonable specificity, the relief sought, a good-faith estimate of the benefits and risks involved, and a list of mandatory disclosures concerning assessments, attorney fees, and the marketability of units affected by construction defects. The notice must also call a meeting of all homeowners. The notice should be sent to the construction professionals at least five days before the homeowners. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Rules Planned Development of Banning Ranch May Proceed

June 10, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (filed 5/20/2015, No. G049691), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, held the Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of Newport Beach for the partial development of Banning Ranch complied with California environmental protection statutes and local ordinances. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), a city desiring to approve or carry out a project that may have significant effect on the environment must prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) designed to provide the public with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project will have on the environment. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for heightened protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (“ESHA”) defined as any “area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.” In 2006, the City of Newport Beach adopted a General Plan for the physical development of the city. The plan specifically identifies Banning Ranch as having significant value as a wildlife habitat and open space resource for citizens. The general plan includes a primary goal of complete preservation of Banning Ranch as open space. To the extent the primary goal cannot be achieved, the plan identifies a secondary goal allowing limited development of Banning Ranch “to fund preservation of the majority of the property as open space.” The plan also requires the City to coordinate any development with the state and federal agencies. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Third-Party Defendant

May 06, 2024 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle won summary judgment in favor of Third-Party Defendant, a general contracting company (the “Contracting Company”), in a personal injury action brought in Suffolk County. In the underlying matter, the Plaintiff—an employee of the Contracting Company—alleged that they sustained injuries from an incident which occurred when they were struck by a skid-steer loader owned by the Co-Defendant masonry company (the “Masonry Company”) and operated by the president and owner of the Co-Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff construction company (the “Construction Company”). The Plaintiff brought claims against the Defendant companies for common law negligence and violations of Labor Law § § 200, 240, and 241, as well as Industrial code (12 NYCRR) subpart 23-2. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa Rolle, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

February 23, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Court of Appeals found that Exxon Mobil Corporation was an additional insured under the CGL policy for Exxon's service provider. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12757 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015). Exxon contracted with Wyatt Field Service Company to perform "services" as set forth in various work orders from Exxon's affiliates. The contract also required Wyatt to maintain $5 million of commercial general liability insurance. The contract provided that the policies must cover Exxon and its affiliates "as additional insureds in connection with the performance of Services." In 2008, Wyatt was assigned to work on a flexicoker unit at Exxon's refinery. Wyatt was to reinstall dummy nozzles and chains. It completed this service in October 2008. Three years later, one of the dummy nozzles pulled free, and the escaping steam and coke burned three individuals who were working on the unit. After the accident, it was discovered that the safety chain had been installed in the wrong location so that it did not properly secure the dummy nozzle. 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

---