Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

October 21, 2015 — CDJ STAFF
Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., (BHA) is proud to be partnering with the State Bar of Texas, Construction Law Section, as a sponsor and exhibitor at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law to be held November 12 & 13, 2015 at The Westin Austin at The Domain. With offices in San Antonio and Houston, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in over 5,500 cases. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of developers, general contractors and subcontractors. BHA’s experience covers the full range of construction defect litigation, including single and multi-family residential (including high-rise), institutional (schools, hospitals and government buildings), commercial, and industrial claims. BHA also specializes in coverage, exposure, premises liability and delay claim analysis. As the dynamic litigation climate in Texas continues to change, and as the number of construction defect and other construction-related cases continues to rise and become more sophisticated, it is more important than ever for contractors and builders to be aggressive in preparing for claims before they are made, and in defending against those claims once they are filed. Since 1993, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting services, and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, in Texas and across the Western United States. Register for the Basic Course... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Alleging and Proving a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) Claim

December 13, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to construction disputes, a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (known by its acronym “FDUTPA”) claim is not commonly asserted. A FDUTPA claim is a statutory claim under Florida Statute s. 501.201 en seq. This claim is NOT easy to prove, particularly in the construction context. Sometimes, a party will assert a FDUTPA claim to create a basis for attorney’s fees; however, that basis cuts BOTH ways, i.e., you can be liable for fees if you fail to prove the FDUTPA claim. In a construction dispute, a FDUTPA claim is one that really should be pled with caution after a party understands and fully considers what it MUST prove including the all-important consideration of how actual damages are determined under FDUTPA, which requires an actual loss. Nevertheless, it is good to know what you need to prove to support a FDUTPA claim in case you believe you have facts that can support a FDUTPA claim and actual damages under FDUTPA (known as benefit-of-the-bargain damages). Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A. Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

November 12, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurers Dispute Sharing of Defense in Construction Defect Case

May 13, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision that the defending insurer was not entitled to reimbursement of defense costs from another insurer based upon a subcontract and additional insured endorsement. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp., 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1261 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2024). Martin McNerney Development Company (McNerney) entered a construction contract to perform seismic upgrades and tenant improvements for condominiums. McNerney and Broadway Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (Broadway) entered a "Subcontract Agreement" under which Broadway was to perform plumbing work at the project. The agreement required Broadway to maintain general liability insurance naming McNerney as an additional insured for work performed on the project, including completed operations. The subcontract also required Broadway to indemnify and hold McNerney harmless with respect to all claims for damage to property arising out of work performed by Broadway. Broadway completed its work on the project in September 2007. Broadway issued a one-year warranty for its work on the project. 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

Pinnacle Controls in Verano

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The California Court of Appeals has applied the California Supreme Court’s recent Pinnacle decision to a new case, Verano Condominium Association v. La Cima Development. As in Pinnacle, La Cima sought to compel arbitration of construction defect claims with a homeowners association. The trial court denied La Cima’s attempt to compel arbitration on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was made with the individual homeowners and not the homeowners association. Further, it was determined that the CC&Rs “were unenforceable due to unconscionability.” La Cima appealed, and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. After Pinnacle, La Cima sought a review. The Supreme Court of California directed the appeals court to vacate their earlier decision and reconsider, based on Pinnacle. The Fourth Circuit Court has concluded that this conflicted with the ruling in Pinnacle. There, as in Verano, homeowners signed agreements that disputes with the developer would be settled through binding arbitration. The appeals court had found for the community association, but on review, the California Supreme Court reversed this decision. The California Court of Appeals had two issue to consider in this review: whether the arbitration provisions applied to the homeowners association, and whether these provisions were unconscionable. The court concluded that “in light of Pinnacle it is clear the arbitration provisions set forth in the Verano CC&Rs constitute a valid agreement to arbitrate.” On the second question, the Verano CC&Rs were described by the court as “materially indistinguishable” from those in the earlier case. As the state Supreme Court found that those were not unconscionable, clearly neither were these. The case was remanded for further proceedings and La Cima is entitled to recover the costs of the appeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Coordinated Youth and Human Services (CYHS), a family services organization hired Honey-Do Home Repair to design and install a new roof for its building in Granite City, Illinois. Honey-Do removed portions of the roof for testing. A few day later during a rainstorm, a tarp failed, leading to water intrusion and damage to the building. The CYHS is suing the contractor for $400,000. It is claiming that repairing the damage cost the organization $200,000, and it seeks additional damage and court costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

July 13, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
According to a recent study conducted by the Harvard University, the University of Chicago, and the University of Illinois, more than 100,000 small businesses (firms with fewer than 500 employees) representing 2% of small businesses in the America have closed their doors permanently due to the coronavirus. The next case, although about events occurring before COVID-19, provides a glimpse of what litigation may look like in the intervening months and years as companies struggle to keep their doors open. The Wanke Case Waterproofing company Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. sued a former employee, Scott Keck, and his competing company, WP Solutions, Inc., for trade secret misappropriation and obtained a judgment for $1,190,929. At the time, general contractor AV Builder Corp. had hired WP Solutions as a waterproofing subcontractor on fire residential and commercial projects. In the face of the judgment obtained by Wanke, Keck declared bankruptcy and dissolved WP Solutions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

The Contingency Fee Multiplier (For Insurance Coverage Disputes)

September 10, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The contingency fee multiplier: a potential incentive for taking a case on contingency, such as an insurance coverage dispute, where the insured sues his/her/its insurer on a contingency fee basis. In a recent property insurance coverage dispute, Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Agosta, 43 Fla.L.Weekly, D1934b (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), the trial court awarded the insured’s counsel a contingency fee multiplier of two times the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees. The insurer appealed. The Third District affirmed the contingency fee multiplier. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES