Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions

June 06, 2022 — Jeffrey Cavignac - Construction Executive
One of the most important provisions in a construction contract is the indemnity provision. An indemnity provision, which usually includes a requirement to hold harmless and defend another party, is included in nearly all construction contracts. Generally speaking, the upstream party (a general contractor or owner, for example) is attempting to shift risk to a downstream party (the general contractor or a subcontractor). In simple terms, subject to certain parameters, the downstream party is agreeing to be responsible for the upstream parties’ mistakes. DEFINING INDEMNIFICATION Insurance brokers focused on development and construction businesses get asked frequently: “If we sign this, are we insured?” It would be great if this could be answered “yes” or “no,” but life is rarely that straightforward. To understand whether a specific indemnification is insurable, we have to drill down on the actual provision. Let’s look at a typical indemnification below:

“To the fullest extent permitted by law the Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the owner, architect, architect’s consultants and agents and employees of any of them from and against any claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from performance of the work whether caused in whole or in part by the contractor, a subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable.”

Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Additional Insured Not Covered Where Injury Does Not Arise Out Of Insured's Work

April 15, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found the contractor did not have coverage as an additional insured under the subcontractor's policy. Walton Constr. v. First Fin. Ins. Co., 2015 US. Dist. LEXIS 30710 (E.D. La. March 12, 2015). John Maestri was injured while working on a construction project for the Jefferson Parish School Board. Maestri was a commercial glazier for A-1 Glass Services Inc. A-1 was a subcontractor for Walton Construction. While Maestri was installing glass on the project, a high-voltage power line maintained by Entergy Louisiana, LLC electrocuted him, causing burns on his body. Maestri sued Entergy. Entergy filed a third-party complaint against A-1 and Walton, alleging that the Louisiana Overhead Power Line Safety Act had been violated by failing to give advance notice that their workers would be working near the power lines. Entergy argued that under the statute, A-1 and Walton are liable for any damages that Entergy had to pay Maestri. 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

New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

June 15, 2017 — Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:

While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Miller may be contacted at gjm@sdvlaw.com

Insured’s Bad Faith Insurance Claim Evaporates Before its Eyes

August 03, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Sometimes it’s right there before your eyes. Then, poof, it’s gone. This was the experience of one insured, who brought a bad faith insurance denial claim against his insurer thinking that the facts were in his favor, only to discover they were not. The 501 E .51st Street Case The Water Main Break and AGI’s Report The owner of a 10-unit apartment building built in 1963, 501 East 51st Street, Long Beach-10 LLC (just rolls off the tongue doesn’t it?), filed a bad faith action against its insurer Kookmin Best Insurance Co., Ltd., after it denied 501 East’s insurance tender following a water main break that caused the building’s foundation to subside. The water main break occurred sometimes between December 31, 2015 and January 2, 2016 next to the southwest side of the building. 501 East tendered its insurance claim to Kookmin on March 8, 2016, and in April 2016, presented a report prepared by American Geotechnical, Inc. (“AGI”) concerning damage to the building. According to the report prepared by AGI, AGI conducted a “limited geotechnical investigation” to “evaluate site conditions relating to the reported building distress following a waterline breach near the south end of the building.” The scope of AGI’s investigation was limited to “observation, photo documentation of the site conditions, [and[ floor-level survey of the interior of the first level units.” AGI’s investigation did not involve any subsurface investigation or soil testing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

California Expands on Scope of Coverage for Soft Cost Claims

February 14, 2023 — Caitlin N. Rabiyan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The California federal district court case of KB Home v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., No. 8:20-cv-00278-JLS-JDE, (C.D. Cal. August 23, 2022), provides much needed guidance for cases involving builder's risk insurance claims for soft cost coverage. The case stems from damage to several of KB Home’s residential building sites caused by a severe rainstorm in January 2017. Each home site was a smaller part of a large housing development project. The damage caused significant delay in the completion of some individual home sites, although there was limited evidence of delay to the overall housing development project. As a result, KB Home sought coverage under a builder’s risk policy purchased from Illinois Union for both hard costs and soft costs. “Hard costs” are the costs directly associated with repairing property damage to the sites. Conversely, “soft costs” are indirect expenses associated with project delays caused by such property damage and repair efforts. For example, hard costs would include labor and materials, whereas the soft costs claimed by KB Home included additional real estate taxes, construction loan interest, and advertising and promotional expenses incurred because of the delays. Illinois Union paid the claim for the hard costs, but denied the soft costs claim. KB Home filed suit and Illinois Union eventually filed a motion for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Caitlin N. Rabiyan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rabiyan may be contacted at CRabiyan@sdvlaw.com

Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

October 30, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s the classic tale of two cities. One city is occupied by architects and engineers. The other, by contractors. And while the cities typically co-exist relatively peacefully together, at times, they do not, such as when a defect arises that can either be a design or construction defect. Sometimes, project owners are pulled into these fights as well. There is a common law rule that when contracting with a contractor the owner impliedly warrants to the contractor that the plans and specifications are sufficiently accurate and correct. And, if you work on local public works projects, you may be familiar with Public Contract Code section 1104 which provides that, with the exception of design-build projects, local public entities cannot require a bidder to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of architectural or engineering plans and specifications. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Report: Construction Firms Could Better Protect Workers From Noise Hazards

April 17, 2019 — Joanna Masterson - Construction Executive
Given that about three-quarters of construction workers are exposed to noise levels above the recommended limit, 83 percent of the 237 contractors surveyed for a new Dodge Data & Analytics SmartMarket Brief say they’ve purchased quieter equipment, yet well over half of those firms report their company could do better. Additionally, 85 percent of contractors report using hearing protection onsite more than 50 percent of the time, yet less than half say they always use it, suggesting a significant opportunity for improvement in the industry. Digging deeper, the survey determined small companies lag behind large and midsize ones in the use of hearing protection. Also, half of general contractors report always using hearing protection, compared to about one-third of trade contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Lightstone Committing $2 Billion to Hotel Projects

February 26, 2015 — Nadja Brandt – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- David Lichtenstein, whose real estate company owned Extended Stay Hotels when the chain went bankrupt, is committing $2 billion to developing and investing in lodging properties. Lightstone Group is choosing “top-branded” select-service properties, those with limited amenities, in proven U.S. markets for its projects, Lichtenstein said in an interview. As part of the strategy, Lightstone has teamed up with Marriott International Inc. to build five Moxy hotels in New York -- four in Manhattan and one in Brooklyn. The “micro” lodgings, with high-tech features and smaller-than-average rooms, are geared toward younger travelers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg
Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES