Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

No Coverage Under Installation Policy When Read Together with Insurance Application

January 16, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case out of the Eleventh Circuit denied an underground contractor’s claim under what appears to be a commercial property installation floater policy (inland marine coverage) that covers the contractor’s materials. Whereas a builder’s risk policy is more expansive, an installation floater is narrower and can provide protection to a contractor for materials and equipment in transit, stored, or being installed subject to the terms of the installation floater policy. It can provide coverage to a trade subcontractor for materials that aren’t covered by builder’s risk. In Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Talcon Group, LLC, 2023 WL 8798053 (11th Cir. 2023), an underground utility contractor that had a general contractor’s license had an installation policy that provided coverage “only for underground utility operations and the site development work tied to those operations.” Talcon Group, supra, at *1. The utility contractor was constructing two residential homes that was on land owned by an affiliated family entity. During construction of the residential homes, a wildfire destroyed the homes prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. The utility contractor submitted a notice of loss to its insurance carrier that provided the installation policy. The carrier denied the claim because the construction of the homes was NOT the same type of work as the installation of underground utilities which was covered. An insurance coverage lawsuit ensued. 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

Client Alert: Court Settles Conflict between CCP and Rules of Court Regarding Demurrer Deadline Following Amended Complaint

August 20, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (No. E056566, filed 8/14/2014), The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held a demurrer was timely filed in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 471.5, despite being filed after the 10-day filing period prescribed in California Rule of Court 3.1320(j). This case appears to settle the conflict that existed between the CCP and the Rules of Court as to the timing of demurrers following amendments to Complaints. Prior to this case, the validity of Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) was unclear as it arguably conflicted with CCP Section 471.5, which requires defendants to “answer” an amended complaint within 30 days after service. At the same time, it was not clear that CCP Section 471.5 applied to amendments after a demurrer had been sustained, and it was even more unclear whether the statutory 30-day period to “answer” an amended complaint foreclosed the shorter 10-day period prescribed under Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) for a demurrer or motion to strike. On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (“Dr. Pepper”) and others. On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dr. Pepper demurred to the FAC on various grounds. On January 5, 2012, the trial court sustained the demurrer in part, and overruled it in part. The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend the FAC. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com, Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

January 19, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We all know that the contract is king in Virginia. We also know that Virginia will allow for a so called “incorporation” clause that will allow for “flow down” of certain prime contract provisions in a way that will make those provisions applicable to subcontractors. We also know that a claim for breach of contract or other contractual claim does not last forever due to certain statutes of limitation found in the Code of Virginia. What happens when all of these elements crash together in one place leading to litigation? Well, a relatively recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least a partial answer. In Hensel Phelps Construction Company v Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc, the Virginia Supreme Court considered a claim that arose from construction at Virginia Tech by Hensel Phelps. The construction concluded in 1998 (remember that date). The Prime Contract included language concerning a one year “Guarantee of Work” as well as fairly typical Warranty of Workmanship” language. However the Prime Contract also stated that the one year guaranty term did nothing to affect any other limitations period for any other action pursuant to the Prime Contract (this is important as well because Virginia Tech was not subject to any statute of limitations due to its status as an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia). Final payment was made to Hensel Phelps and subsequently to the subcontractors in 1999. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

There is No Claims File Privilege in Florida, Despite What Insurers Want You to Think

June 17, 2024 — Susana Arce & Stephanie A. Giagnorio - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
As Florida insurers continue their attempts to narrow protections for policyholders, it is imperative - now more than ever - that insureds be well-informed and know their rights. Most recently, in Florida, insurers are attempting to weaponize the death of Senate Bill 1726 and House Bill 1287 to limit the documents disclosed to policyholders. Specifically, the proposed bill, which required insurers to disclose their claims file to policyholders, hoped to thwart insurers from utilizing “claims file privilege” to obstruct justice for policyholders and help level the playing field. The goal of the proposed bill was to promote transparency of the claim adjustment process and undercut insurers’ attempts to dodge discovery of relevant and necessary information during litigation, forcing the insurers to fully and honestly justify their basis for withholding coverage . Unfortunately for policyholders, on March 8, 2024, the proposed legislation was not passed by the Insurance and Banking Subcommittee. While insurers want you to believe this is a significant victory and a free pass to continue withholding documents under a “claims file privilege,” this is not the case. The proposed bill merely codified current Florida law – simply put, the “claims file privilege” never existed, and still does not. Reprinted courtesy of Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Stephanie A. Giagnorio, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Arce may be contacted at SArce@sdvlaw.com Ms. Giagnorio may be contacted at SGiagnorio@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

September 12, 2022 — Robert A. James, Ashleigh Myers, Shellka Arora-Cox & Amanda G. Halter - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
As the world pursues ambitious net-zero carbon emission goals, demand is soaring for the critical materials required for the technologies leading the energy transition. Lithium may be the most well-known of these inputs due to its usage in batteries for vehicles and consumer electronics, but roughly 50 other minerals are central to energy transition technologies. During the coming years, producers, manufacturers and end-users will be increasingly exposed to the roles played by “rare earth” elements (roughly, atomic numbers 57 to 71), platinum group metals, and other materials. The reasons for this heightened interest are simple—even if the underlying environmental, political and technological forces at play are complex:

Lower-carbon technologies use different materials than carbon-intensive technologies. The mineral requirements of power and mobility systems driven by renewable, nuclear, hydrogen and fusion energy are profoundly different from those forming the backbone of fossil fuel systems. Minerals such as lithium, nickel, copper, cobalt, and rare earth elements are vital for electric vehicles (EVs), batteries, fuel cells, electricity grids, wind turbines, smart devices, and many other essential and proliferating civilian and military technologies. For example, an offshore wind plant needs 13 times more mineral resources than a gas power plant of a similar size.

Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury, Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury, Shellka Arora-Cox, Pillsbury and Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Arora-Cox may be contacted at shellka.aroracox@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

April 06, 2016 — David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Payment clauses in California construction contracts are often complex and multi-layered. This is especially true in contracts between general contractors and their subcontractors. The general does not want to pay the subs until it receives funding from the owners. The subs, of course, want their progress and final payments as soon as possible. Up until 1997, two different payment provisions were used in California contracts to manage payments by a general to its subcontractors. The first was called a “pay if paid” clause, and provided a contractor did not have to pay its subcontractors for work performed unless the subcontractor was first paid by the owner of the project. The second was the “pay when paid clause.” It required subcontractors to be paid for their work after the general was paid by the owner, or within “a reasonable time” after the subcontractors finished their work if the owner did not pay the general. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com

Insurer's Late Notice Defense Fails on Summary Judgment

December 13, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim because the insurer did not provide notice "as soon as practicable" was denied. Vintage Hospitality Group LLC v. Nat'l Trust Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192651 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2021). Vintage owned hotels, one of which was struck by a severe hailstorm on July 21, 2018. Vintage was not aware of roof damage until two months after the storm, and did not make the connection between the hailstorm and roof damage until February 2020, when it reported the damage to National. The claim was denied because it was not reported "as soon as practicable" as required by the policy. Vintage sued and National moved for summary judgment. Vintage did not notice the leaks until September 2018. The focus was on fixing the leaks, and connection to the hailstorm did not register. The leaks persisted over the next year and a half. A construction company was called in to evaluate the leaking roof. The construction company advised that the roof had experienced previous hail damage which was causing the leaks. At this point, Vintage connected the damage to the hailstorm. A claim was promptly submitted to National, which denied the claim. 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

Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

March 07, 2011 — Steven M. Cvitanovic

Contractors should always be sure that they understand the licensing in any Subcontract or Prime Contract before entering into any agreement. However, on March 3, 2011, in the case of Pacific Casson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros., Inc. 2011 Cal.App.Lexis 236, the Court of Appeal determined that if a specialty license is subsumed within another license, the specialty license may not be required.

Bernards entered into a subcontract with Pacific to excavate, backfill, grade and provide geotechnical design parameters for a hospital. The Prime Contract required the bidder to maintain a Class C-12 specialty earthwork license. However, Pacific only held a Class A general engineering license which it turns out was suspended during the performance of the work. Pacific sued Bernards for nonpayment of $544,567, but the lawsuit was dismissed because the trial court found that Pacific (1) lacked a C-12 license, and (2) Pacific’s Class A license was suspended for failure to pay an unrelated judgment. Pacific was also ordered to disgorge $206,437 in prior payments.

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeal agreed with Pacific and held that a C-12 specialty license was not required despite the Prime Contract. The Court of Appeal found that the C-12 specialty license would have been “superfluous” since it was fully encompassed within the Class A requirements. However, the Court of Appeal also remanded the case for further

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES