Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial

April 28, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court's determination that untimely notice of the loss was prejudicial, eliminating the insurer's coverage obligations. B.S.C. Holding, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4492 (10th Cir. March 11, 2014). In January 2008, the insured's employees detected an inflow of water in a salt mine and feared dissolution of the salt or structural problems. The insured tried to devise a solution. Two and a half million dollars were spent to find the cause of the water inflow and to identify a solution. In April 2010, the insured determined the inflow was caused by an improperly sealed oil well. In July 2010, the insured notified Lexington of the water inflow. The ultimate proof of loss was for $7.5 million, which included remediation measures that the insured had performed before notifying Lexington. Lexington's all-risk policy required the insured to notify the company in writing as soon as practicable. 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

Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

May 24, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion out of the Eastern District Court of Virginia, Dickson v. Forney Enterprises, Inc., 2021 WL 1536574 (E.D.Virginia 2021), demonstrates that the federal Miller Act is not designed to protect ALL that perform work on a federal construction project. This is because NOT ALL work is covered under the Miller Act. In this case, a professional engineer was subcontracted by a prime contractor to serve on site in a project management / superintendent capacity. The prime contractor’s scope of work was completed by January 31, 2019. However, the prime contractor was still required to inventory certain materials on site, which was performed by the engineer. The engineer claimed it was owed in excess of $400,000 and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit on February 5, 2020 (more than a year after the project was completed). 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

Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

February 10, 2020 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action. In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses. The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

February 27, 2019 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
Reversing a Texas Court of Appeals decision that allowed Anadarko’s Lloyd’s of London excess insurers to escape coverage for more than $100 million in defense costs incurred in connection with claims from the Deepwater Horizon well blowout, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the insurers’ obligations to pay defense costs under an “energy package” liability policy are not capped by a joint venture coverage limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Houston Casualty Co. et al., No. 16-1013 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2019). While the Lloyd’s of London insurers had agreed to pay Anadarko $37.5 million for damages, they declined to cover $100 million-plus in defense fees, arguing that both Anadarko’s liability and defense expenses are subject to the $37.5 million joint venture limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko asserted that only amounts paid as damages to third parties are subject to that limit. Defense costs, however, are not amounts paid as damages to a third party and, thus, are not a “liability.” Those amounts, therefore, are not subject to the joint venture limit and are instead subject to the policy’s $150 million coverage limit. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry

July 01, 2014 — Chris Dolmetsch, Freeman Klopott and Jim Efstathiou Jr. – Bloomberg
New York’s cities and towns can block hydraulic fracturing within their borders, the state’s highest court ruled, dealing a blow to an industry awaiting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s decision on whether to lift a six-year-old statewide moratorium. The case, closely watched by the energy industry, may invigorate local challenges to fracking in other states and convince the industry to stay out of New York even if Cuomo allows drilling. Pennsylvania’s highest court issued a similar ruling last year, striking down portions of a state law limiting localities’ ability to regulate drillers. “This sends a really strong and clear message to the gas companies who have tried to buy their way into the state that these community concerns have to be addressed,” Katherine Nadeau, policy director for Environmental Advocates of New York, an anti-fracking group, said in a phone interview. “This will empower more communities nationwide.” Mr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net; Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net; and Mr. Efstathiou Jr. may be contacted at jefstathiou@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch, Freeman Klopott and Jim Efstathiou Jr., Bloomberg

New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

January 02, 2019 — Steven J. Pearse, Esq. & David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Senate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES. California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern. SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code. This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation. California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation. The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Blog Completes Fifteenth Year

December 13, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Insurance Law Hawaii completes its fifteenth year of existence this month. We began posting in December 2007, 1656 posts ago. We strive to keep readers abreast of new developments in insurance-related cases from Hawaii and across the country. Coverage issues in the past year have again been dominated by COVID-19, business interruption, construction defect, and cyber claims. This trend will likely continue over the next year and we will do our best to track developments. Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

August 04, 2015 — Tanya Salgado – White and Williams LLP
The question of whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor or an employee is fraught with confusion and misunderstanding for many businesses. Compounding the problem is the fact that there are a number of different tests used to determine employee status, which vary by jurisdiction and by the particular law in question. For example, the Internal Revenue Service uses the common law rules which focus on the degree of control and independence exercised by the worker. In contrast, the United States Department of Labor uses the “economic realities” test which focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer. In an effort to help combat the confusion over proper worker classification, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a new Administrator’s Interpretation that provides a detailed explanation of the test used by the DOL to determine if a worker has been misclassified as an independent contractor. The DOL enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which mandates that employees (but not independent contractors) be paid minimum wage and overtime. When a business misclassifies non-exempt workers as independent contractors, and those workers are not paid the minimum hourly wage for their labor, or are not paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, this violates the FLSA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tanya Salgado, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Salgado may be contacted at salgadot@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES