Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Impairing Your Insurer’s Subrogation Rights

May 06, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Liability insurance policies have a provision that allows them to subrogate to the rights of their insured. This provision is commonly referred to as a transfer of rights provision and reads: If the insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have made under this Coverage Part, those rights are transferred to us. The insured must do nothing after loss to impair them. At our request, the insured will bring “suit” or transfer those rights to us and help us enforce them. In a recent dispute, an insurer sued its insured claiming the insured breached the insurance policy-a contract—by impairing the insurer’s subrogation rights. In other words, the insurer claimed its insured breach the insurance contract and the transfer of rights provision above. 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

Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders

June 30, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Contracts and subcontracts often contain language that requires change orders to be in writing and that no change order work shall be performed unless agreed to in advance in a signed change order. Oftentimes change order work is performed but the parties have not complied with the strict requirements of the contract by having this work signed off by the parties in a change order prior to the commencement of the work. Well, can such requirements be waived? If so, can such change orders form the basis of a Miller Act claim? The answer is generally yes provided the party arguing waiver can support the waiver with evidence (that the other party voluntarily relinquished the requirements through its course of conduct / actions). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Making the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive, Part 2

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
John P. Ahler, on the Ahlers & Cressman PLLC blog, has posted the second part of his two-part series on Ways to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive. In this post, Ahler discussed “tips on how lawyers and stakeholders can make things move quicker in arbitration.” For example, Ahler looked at the arbitration clause in the initial contract, various options for arbitration, evidence decisions, and others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

December 10, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment due on the insured's claims for water damage to a church. Unity Church of God in Christ of York v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163204 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2024). Unity Church alleged that it suffered a sudden and accidental direct physical loss to its church. Wind damage to the roof of the church allowed rainwater to leak into the sanctuary of the church. Notice was given to Church Mutual Insurance Company, but coverage was denied. Unity Church filed suit alleging breach of contract. Church Mutual answered and asserted a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the water damage to the church was outside the policy's coverage because the damage was caused by rain. Church Mutual filed for summary judgment. 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

Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

November 07, 2022 — Reeya Patel - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington v. Roof Doctor, Inc. d/b/a Roof Doctors, Inc. of Tacoma (Unpublished opinion) Roof Doctor, a company engaging maintenance of roofs, was hired to complete work for a commercial building in Tacoma in February 2018. During the job, Roof Doctor was cited for two violations by a Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ (L&I) compliance inspector and seven additional asbestos violations. Each citation was rated with a probability of 1 – 3 to determine the likelihood of injury, illness, or disease. The ratings allowed issuance of an appropriate monetary penalty. The disputes among the parties on appeal were as follows: First, L&I and Roof Doctor disputed the asbestos probability ratings and calculated penalties. L&I produced as evidence, the fact that nine employees were physically hanging roofing material with asbestos, but none had training or knew that the material contained asbestos. L&I did agree that that most of the employees were experienced in handling roofing material and knew of the dangers that asbestos presented. Roof Doctor explained that because the employees were working outdoors, the danger of asbestos exposure was mitigated due to a low probability that a high concentration of asbestos could be inhaled by the employees when outdoors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Secured by Lewis Brisbois in Coverage Dispute Involving San Francisco 49ers’ Levi Stadium

May 31, 2021 — Kristen Perkins & Jordon Harriman - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Fort Lauderdale Partner and Vice Chair of Lewis Brisbois’ Insurance Coverage & Bad Faith Litigation Practices Kristen D. Perkins and Los Angeles Partner Jordon E. Harriman had their district court victory confirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit when it affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Lewis Brisbois’ client, an excess insurer, had no duty to defend or indemnify a construction joint venture in a lawsuit filed by San Francisco 49ers fans. Underlying Case and Lewis Brisbois’ Successful Motion to Dismiss In the underlying matter, 49ers fans filed a proposed class action against the team, alleging that the team’s home venue, Levi Stadium, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act because it contained physical barriers that hindered access for disabled people. The 49ers subsequently filed a third-party complaint against the construction joint venture that built the stadium, contending that the joint venture’s negligence caused the inaccessibility, and that if the team was held liable for the fans' claims, the joint venture should be obligated to indemnify the team under the terms of the stadium contract. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Perkins, Lewis Brisbois and Jordon Harriman, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Perkins may be contacted at Kristen.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Harriman may be contacted at Jordon.Harriman@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

June 04, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, I’m back. It’s been quite a while since my last post due to some busy family times and running my law practice. Hopefully, you will hear from me more often in the future. Now. . . on with the post: I have often discussed indemnity provisions here at Construction Law Musings. I’ve posted on a range of things relating to indemnity from when those sticky clauses are unenforceable to what to look out for in such a clause when reviewing your construction contract. A recent case out of Fairfax examines another wrinkle in these indemnity clauses. In Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, LLC v. Paramount Constr. Servs., LLC, the Court examined the language of a fairly typical indemnity clause in a construction contract. The general facts of the case are as follows. The Plaintiff alleged that it owns the property at 6129 Leesburg Pike, that it entered into a contract with Paramount Construction Services LLC to install clothes washers and dryers in individual units at the property, and that, in the process, Paramount (or one of its subcontractors) negligently severed a water pipe, which caused significant damage to the property. The plaintiff’s property insurance carrier agreed to pay the plaintiff $2,598,918.41. But the actual damages exceeded that payment by $952,020.90. The plaintiff sued Paramount for $952,020, pursuant to an indemnity provision in the contract. Paramount demurred to the Complaint arguing that the indemnity clause did not apply to create liability for Paramount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

In a case the judge attributed to “shoddy masonry work,” the US District Court of Illinois has rendered a decision in AMCO Insurance Company v. Northern Heritage Builders. Northern Heritage built a home in Chicago for Michael McGrath (who joined Northern Heritage as a defendant). According to the decision, “seven months after he moved into the house, McGrath noticed water coming in the house and warped millwork.” This was attributed to porous block, installed by the mason with Northern Heritage’s knowledge.

McGrath sued National Heritage for both the damage to his house and its contents. The court rejected his claim for the contents. For the damages to his house, he was awarded $601,570.50 in damages. He also sued his homeowner’s insurance carrier for damages not covered in his suit against National Heritage. There he was awarded $1,130,680.16.

AMCO informed National Heritage that it had neither duty to defend nor duty to indemnify. The judge considered whether AMCO had a duty to defend. Under Illinois law, “damage to a construction project resulting from construction defects is not an ‘accident’ or ‘occurrence’ because it represents the natural and ordinary consequence of faulty construction.” However, it is noted that while if the defects lead only to damage to the project itself, there is no occurrence, “if the building owner asserts damages to other property besides the construction itself, there is an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage.’” The judge further noted that were construction defects an occurrence, “shoddy work” would be rewarded by double pay, once by the homeowner and a second time by the insurer. Judge Kendall concluded that as McGrath had alleged damage to the contents of his house, AMCO had a duty to defend National Heritage.

She then looked at the issue of whether AMCO had a duty to indemnify. Should they pay the $601,570.50? Judge Kendall noted that “the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend.” The key point here was that once McGrath’s insurance carrier covered him for the damage to the contents of his house, “AMCO’s duty to defend ended.” Once McGrath “only sought damages for the natural consequences of faulty workmanship” there was no occurrence, hence nothing for AMCO to cover.

Judge Kendall granted a summary dismissal of AMCO’s claim that they had no duty to defend while upholding their claim that they had no duty to indemnify.

Read the court’s decision…

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES