Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

October 08, 2014 — Chris Christoff – Bloomberg
Billionaire Dan Gilbert envisions a vibrant and shiny downtown Detroit, where he owns a casino and about 60 buildings. His urban Eden doesn’t include a jail with 2,000 criminals. Gilbert is resisting county officials’ plans to restart construction on a half-finished jail mired in cost overruns, criminal investigations and debt. The project, which the Wayne County Commission may revive tomorrow, would replace a complex on land that Gilbert, the 52-year-old founder and chairman of Detroit-based Quicken Loans Inc., offered to buy for $50 million to build a hotel, housing and stores. The dispute over the jail, which has sat unfinished for 16 months, pits one of Detroit’s most prominent boosters against a county government over how to reinvigorate the city’s heart. Gilbert, whose company is the nation’s largest online retail mortgage lender, has invested $1.3 billion there, betting on the former auto-manufacturing capital’s resurgence after decades of decline that pushed it into a record $18 billion municipal bankruptcy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Christoff, Bloomberg
Mr. Christoff may be contacted at cchristoff@bloomberg.net

Understanding Insurance Disputes in Construction Defect Litigation: A Review of Acuity v. Kinsale

December 17, 2024 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Construction projects are inherently complex, and insurance coverage plays a crucial role in managing risks, especially when unforeseen issues arise. The case of Acuity v. Kinsale demonstrates the tangled web of insurance obligations, especially when multiple insurers provide coverage for a single event. This case, involving Monarch Stucco, Inc., Acuity, and Kinsale Insurance Company, sheds light on the challenges that contractors, subcontractors, and insurers may face when disputes over liability and coverage occur. The Background of the Case At the heart of this dispute lies a construction defect at a retirement community project in Lakewood, Colorado. Monarch Stucco, Inc. (“Monarch”), a subcontractor hired by GH Phipps Construction Company (“Phipps”), was responsible for stucco work on the project. Unfortunately, defects in the building’s envelope system, particularly Monarch’s stucco work, led to significant damage and costly repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy

September 12, 2022 — Martha B. Chovanes & Laurie A. Stanziale - ConsensusDocs
While contractor bankruptcies have long been an issue in the construction industry, in the aftermath of COVID-19 and the resultant labor, material and supply-chain delays, contractor bankruptcies are of even greater concern. Many construction contracts attempt to protect the upstream party from a bankruptcy filing of its contractor or subcontractor by providing for an automatic right to terminate a contract, referred to as “ipso facto” clauses. However, such clauses are generally unenforceable as bankruptcy laws, specifically Section 365(e) of Title 11 of the United States Code, protect the party filing for bankruptcy (the “Debtor”) from unilateral termination of the contract by the non-Debtor party. What is an “Ipso Facto” clause? An ipso facto clause is a provision in an agreement which permits its termination by one party due to the bankruptcy, insolvency or financial condition of the other party. Reprinted courtesy of Martha B. Chovanes, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Chovanes may be contacted at mchovanes@foxrothschild.com Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment on Conversion Claim Against Insurer

February 01, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Although the court was incredulous that the parties were disputing the possession of a gate opener allegedly damaged in a lightning strike, it granted the insured's motion for partial summary judgment finding the insurer had converted the gate opener. Privratsky v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196002 (D. Haw. Oct. 27, 2022). (Full disclosure, our office is co-counsel for the insured). Mr. Privratsky alleged his home on Maui was struck by lightning which caused an electrical surge. The home and personal property were damaged. The alleged cost of repair work at one point was as much as $325,000. A claim was submitted under a homeowner's policy issued by Liberty Mutual. Liberty paid for only some of the damage. Privratsky filed suit alleging three causes of action for: (1) declaratory judgment that the losses were covered by the policy issued by Liberty; (2) bad faith; and (3) conversion of personal property, namely, the damaged gate operator. 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

New Jersey Court Adopts Continuous Trigger for Construction Defect Claims

November 15, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, adopted the continuous trigger for establishing which insurers were on the risk for construction defect claims. Air Master & Cooling, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 2017 N.J. Super. LEXIS 144 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div. Oct. 10, 2017). The insured, Air Master, worked as a subcontractor on the construction of a condominium building. Air Master performed HVAC work in the building between November 2005 and April 2008. Air Master's work consisted of installing condenser units on rails on the building's roof, and also HVAC devices within each individual unit. Starting in early 2008, some of the unit owners began to notice water infiltration and damage in their windows, ceilings, and other portions of their units. On April 29, 2010, an expert consultant, Jersey Infrared Consultants, performed a moisture survey of the roof for water damage. A report identified 111 spots on the roof damaged by moisture from water infiltration. The report noted it was impossible to determine when moisture infiltration occurred. The expert recommended that these damaged areas of the roof be removed and replaced. 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

A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

June 27, 2022 — Gerard J. Onorata - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
During a construction project, it is not uncommon for disputes to arise between a general contractor and a subcontractor. Frequently, these disputes involve claims for extra work and delay damages that can be attributed to the owner of the project due to deficient design or unforeseen conditions. When these occasions arise, the parties can often resolve these claims without the need for litigation or arbitration by entering into a “liquidating agreement.” What is a Liquidating Agreement? Because there is no direct contractual relationship between a subcontractor and an owner, there does not exist a legal basis for a subcontractor to assert a breach of contract claim against a project owner. In legal parlance, this is known as “lack of contractual privity.” A liquidating agreement bridges this contractual gap and allows a subcontractor to pass its claim against the owner through the general contractor. Essentially, with a liquidating agreement, the general contractor acts as a conduit for passing through the subcontractor’s claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

Update – Property Owner’s Defense Goes up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

September 21, 2020 — Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2020 Md. LEXIS 347 (July 27, 2020) (Steamfitters Local), a matter originally discussed in a June 2019 blog post, the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed that, where the property owner knows or should have known that people are habitually discarding hundreds of cigarette butts into a mulch bed along the boundary of the neighboring property, the property owner owes a duty to its neighbors to prevent the risk of fire. As discussed in Steamfitters Local, a fire originated in a strip of mulch at property owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (Union) and caused damage to neighboring properties. The fire occurred when an unknown person discarded a cigarette butt into the mulch. Following the fire, investigators found hundreds of cigarette butts in the mulch where the fire originated. A representative for the Union acknowledged that there were more butts in the mulch “than there should have been” and that, “[i]n the right situation,” a carelessly discarded cigarette could cause a fire. The Union, however, had no rules or signs to prohibit or regulate smoking at the property, where apprentices would often gather prior to class. The insurance companies for the damaged neighbors filed subrogation actions alleging that the Union, as the property owner, failed to use reasonable care to prevent a foreseeable fire. A jury found in favor of the subrogating insurers and the defendants appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

“But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

May 30, 2018 — Bobby Kethcart - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In real estate cases—which frequently involve long purchase agreements, loan documents, personal guarantees, deeds of trust, etc.—we’ve likely all had a client or opposing party who trots out the line that they didn’t know what they were signing, or they didn’t read or understand what they were signing, so the document shouldn’t be enforced according to its terms. Most of us instinctively believe the claim is a loser: You signed the document, you’re bound by it. But is this actually right? Well, we did some digging. Here is the Arizona law on the subject: Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, 134 Ariz. 557, 658 P.2d 210 (App. 1982):

“A mistake of only one of the parties to a contract in the expression of his agreement or as to the subject matter does not affect its binding force and ordinarily affords no ground for its avoidance, or for relief, even in equity.” “A manifestation of acceptance to the offeror or his agent forms a contract regardless of the intent of the acceptor.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bobby Kethcart, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Kethcart may be contacted at rkethcart@swlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES