SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing

April 12, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have often discussed the limited circumstances under which a construction contract claim and a fraud claim can coexist. A recent case from the Western District of Virginia federal court demonstrates that care is necessary even in those limited circumstances. In Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys., the Court examined the question of a fraud statute of limitations under Virginia law. The basic facts found in the Complaint are these: In 2011, the United States Army awarded BAE Systems Ordinance Systems Inc. a basic ordering agreement under which BAE was responsible for modernization projects at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant. This action stems from a subcontract between Fluor Federal Solutions LLC and BAE, under which Fluor agreed to design and construct a new natural gas boiler at the plant. Fluor has completed work on the project, and BAE has accepted that work. Nonetheless, Fluor claims that BAE has refused or failed to pay for the balance of the project costs. Fluor alleges that BAE received several changes to its prime contract from the Army but did not pass those changes along to Fluor until after BAE solicited a bid from Fluor and entered a contract with Fluor to build a temporary facility. Instead, BAE continued to misrepresent the scope of the project. Fluor alleges that the change in plans increased costs substantially, but that BAE withheld information about those changes so that it could solicit lower bids. Fluor alleges that it requested a copy of BAE’s prime contract on numerous occasions, but BAE failed to provide a copy of it. Instead, Fluor submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act. It received a copy of BAE’s prime contract on Oct. 3, 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
California law prohibits building near or on top of earthquake fault lines, but Los Angeles County building officials may have used outdated information that misreported the location of certain faults. The Los Angeles Times reports that after their earlier articles on fault lines, the officials have started using newer maps. According to the older maps, an apartment building under construction on Brockton Avenue in Los Angeles is 1.9 miles away from the Santa Monica fault. But a more recent map, created by the state in 2010, shows that the fault line could potentially be right under the building site. The builders of another apartment building potentially located on the Santa Monica fault said that the city did not ask for a fault investigation. The Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety said that there was no official zone designation for the Santa Monica fault, and so did not require seismic studies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Water Alone is Not Property Damage under a CGL policy in Connecticut

July 22, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
The Connecticut Appellate Court recently provided guidance on what does not constitute property damage under a typical contractor’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy in Westchester Modular Homes of Fairfield County, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Ins. Co., 224 Conn App. 526 (2024). In this case, the contractor defended construction defect claims brought by an owner and then sued its insurer to recover $500,000 in defense costs for failing to provide a defense under the contractor’s policy. In Connecticut, an insurer is obligated to provide a defense based on what is alleged in a complaint and if it has actual knowledge of any facts establishing a reasonable possibility of coverage. The contractor provided extrinsic evidence for two defects claimed by the owner: (1) windows were installed improperly such that water was collecting and will continue to collect in the window soffit areas and eventually rot the wall, and (2) the vapor barrier was not installed in the second-floor ceiling which will result in water condensation and water damage to the roof structure if not remedied. The insurer relied on typical provisions included in most CGL policies. The insurer has no duty to defend the insured against any suit seeking damages for property damage to which the insurance does not apply. The term “property damage” is defined as “physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property.” Under well-established Connecticut law, the phrase “physical injury” unambiguously connotes damage to tangible property, causing an alteration in appearance, shape, color, or some other material dimension. It is also well-established that claims for property damage caused by defective work are covered under a CGL policy but claims for repair of the defective work itself are not. The insurer denied any duty to defend because no coverage was triggered under the liability policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

---

Unpredictable Opinion Regarding Construction Lien (Reinstatement??)

January 17, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here comes the discussion of an appeal I was intimately involved in dealing with a construction lien. See Suntech Plumbing and Mechanical Corp. v. Bella Isla, LLC, 2022 WL 14672765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). Unfortunately, it was a losing result on my end but not a losing result to the issue at-hand. You should ask what in the world does this mean. I will tell you. Here is the fact pattern. A subcontractor files a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit against an owner for unpaid contract balance. In the same lawsuit, the subcontractor sues the general contractor for breach of contract and unjust enrichment associated with an approximate three-year delay on a construction project. The project was scheduled to be completed in 2019. It was not. The project was pushed into COVID and into 2022. (The subcontractor did not sue the general contractor for amounts subject to the lien foreclosure claim.) The general contractor, assuming the defense of the owner, moved to stay the lawsuit pending the outcome of arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the subcontract. The subcontractor did not dispute the arbitration provision, but argued that arbitration provision should not extend to the owner that was (a) not bound by the subcontract, (b) would not be a party to the arbitration, and (c) the amounts pled against the general contractor did not include the amounts subject of the lien foreclosure lawsuit. At a minimum, the lawsuit should be stayed, not dismissed. Nevertheless, the trial court dismissed the entire lawsuit in an order that states that it is a final order with language that the lien may be “reinstated” after the outcome of the arbitration (that the owner is not a party to). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Protect Against Design Errors With Owners Protective Professional Indemnity Coverage

March 14, 2018 — Joseph Nawa – New Day Underwriting Managers, LLC
Prior to the devastation caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, the AIA Consensus Construction Forecast had predicted “slower growth for the construction industry for the remainder of 2017 and through 2018.” But, given the hundreds of billions of dollars in damages caused by these horrific events, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, estimates a lift to the economy through the rebuilding of these areas. This, of course, is dependent on insurer funds and the amount of aid offered through government sources. Nonetheless, the process will be costly, timely and exhaustive. Under such circumstances, speed is a necessity. In addition to being drawn into the earliest stages of the project development cycle, the services of construction professionals have merged so intensely that even their “consultative advice” have produced exposures in “collaborative” environments rife with liability. A challenge for contractors in today’s design/build marketplace is securing professional liability insurance policies that will not only manage the risks associated with their own errors and omissions, but also the problems caused by designers and others contracted to work on the project. However, this too is not very easy. Such policies when purchased by contractors can be exceedingly cost prohibitive. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Nawa, Construction Executive, a Publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All Rights Reserved
Mr. Nawa may be contacted at joseph.nawa@newdayunderwriting.com

---

Hawaii Supreme Court Bars Insurers from Billing Policyholders for Uncovered Defense Costs

April 23, 2024 — Amanda C. Stefanatos - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Across the country, there is a split in authority as to whether an insurance company should be allowed to recoup defense costs where it is ultimately determined that the carrier has no duty to defend under the policy and the policy is silent as to such reimbursement. The Hawaii Supreme Court is the latest to enter the fray to address this very question, ruling in favor of policyholders in the recent case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Bodell Construction Company. Facts of the Case and Procedural History The Bodell case arose in response to a pair of certified questions from the US District Court for Hawaii to the Hawaii Supreme Court. The case involved a group of primary and excess insurers that sold liability policies to Bodell Construction and sought reimbursement of defense costs that the insurers had paid to defend a construction defect claim against Bodell. In the Underlying Action, the District Court ultimately ruled that the claims against Bodell Construction were not covered under the policies. Because the claims were not covered, the insurers demanded reimbursement of the defense fees from Bodell . Having determined there was no Hawaii state law on this issue, and in light of conflicting decisions in the district courts, the US District Court for Hawaii requested guidance from the Hawaii Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda C. Stefanatos, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Stefanatos may be contacted at AStefanatos@sdvlaw.com

---

Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

November 14, 2018 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Specialist
In Gindel v. Centex Homes, 2018 Fla.App. LEXIS 13019, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently concluded that the date on which the plaintiffs provided a pre-suit notice in compliance with §558.004 of Florida’s construction defect Right-to-Cure statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 558.001 to 558.005, et. seq., is the date on which the plaintiff commenced a “civil action or proceeding,” i.e. an “action,” within the meaning of Florida’s construction defect statute of repose, Florida Statue § 95.11(3)(c). Thus, reversing the decision of the trial court, the Fourth District held that the plaintiffs timely-filed their construction defect action against the defendants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

January 05, 2017 — Jeremiah M. Welch – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Jeremiah Welch and Michael Barrese recently had a big win in front of the Michigan Court of Appeals. The case (Skanska-Schweitzer v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan) involved Skanska’s claim for defense and indemnity from Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Michigan for an injury to an elementary school student arising out of the removal of playground equipment by a landscaping company, Horrocks. Farm Bureau denied coverage because it claimed that the work was not part of Horrocks’ contract with the project owner and therefore Skanska, the construction manager, did not qualify as an additional insured on the policy. SDV argued that the AI endorsement did not specify that Horrocks’ work be performed as part of its contract with the owner; it only required that the work be performed “for Skanska.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Welch may be contacted at jmw@sdvlaw.com

---