Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

August 10, 2021 — Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLP
Few courts have yet decided insurance coverage issues in litigation involving per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But yesterday, in Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Chemicals, Inc., No. H-20-3493, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146702 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum & Forster) had a duty to defend Chemicals, Inc. against firefighters’ allegations that they were injured by PFAS contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The AFFF claims are consolidated in the multi-district litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, and you can read more about that here. Turning to the decision from August 5, 2021, Crum & Forster issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Chemicals, Inc. for liability arising from bodily injury, to the extent that injury “first occur[ed] during the ‘policy period[.]’” Further, a “Continuous or Progressive Damage or Injury” condition in the policies stated, “If the date cannot be determined upon which such ‘bodily injury’ … first occurred[,] then, … such ‘bodily injury’ … will be deemed to have occurred or existed, … before the ‘policy period’.” The Crum & Forster policies were issued between 2011 and 2019. The complaints in the MDL do not specify when the firefighters were allegedly exposed to PFAS-containing AFFF or when the firefighters first allegedly manifested symptoms of such exposure. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Party Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It Perpetrates

January 09, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An interesting case came out of Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal that touches upon two important points. First, the independent tort doctrine does not apply when there is not a contract between the parties. Second, an officer cannot escape fraud simply by claiming his or her actions were done as an officer of the company when he or she actively participated in the fraud. Both of these points are best explained by initially going into the facts of this case. As you will see, the Court’s rationale relates to the premise that a party should not be able to skirt out of the very fraud it perpetrates. Factual Background Costa Investors, LLC v. Liberty Grande, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D7b (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) involved the ultimate development and construction of four adjacent properties into the Costa Hollywood Hotel. The properties were purchased by a company called Liberty Grande. Its president / manager was also the president of Liberty Grande’s wholly owned subsidiary called Costa Hollywood Property. Liberty Grande transferred the properties to Costa Hollywood Property and the deed was signed by the president / manager. 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

Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

October 26, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a contractor is challenging the assessment of liquidated damages, or arguing that it is entitled to extended general conditions, the contractor bears a burden of proof to establish there were excusable delays that impacted the critical path and, in certain scenarios, the delays were not concurrent with contractor-caused delay:

When delays are excusable, a contractor is entitled to a time extension, such that the government may not assess liquidated damages for those delays. The government bears the initial burden of proving that the contractor failed to meet the contract completion date, and that the period of time for which the government assessed liquidated damages was correct. If the government makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the contractor to show that its failure to timely complete the work was excusable. To show an excusable delay, a contractor must show that the delay resulted from “unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.” “In addition, the unforeseeable cause must delay the overall contract completion; i.e., it must affect the critical path of performance.” Further, the contractor must show that there was no concurrent delay.

Ken Laster Co., ASBCA No. 61292, 2020 WL 5270322 (ASBCA 2020) (internal citations omitted). 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

Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

October 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lee County, Texas has sued the architect responsible for designing the drainage system at its historic courthouse. The suit seeks $1.7 million in damages to pay for replacing the defective system and repairing the building from damage sustained due to soil saturation. Dale A. Rabe responds that the county commissioners were more concerned with “beautifying the building” than on needed foundation repairs. Further, Mr. Rabe notes that “Lee County contracted directly with a civil engineering firm to design a drainage system.” But according to Mr. Rabe what they used instead was “a cheaper pump-based design to save money.” And even there, “Lee County failed to maintain the drainage system properly. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Accessibility Considerations – What Your Company Should Be Aware of in 2021

May 03, 2021 — Heather H. Whitehead - Newmeyer Dillion
Accessibility claims increased significantly in 2020, with this specific type of ADA-related case increasing by 23% from 2019 to 2020.1 This includes cases filed in federal court and those filed in California state court under the Unruh Act - with a direct reference to violation of the ADA.2 In California alone, a total of 989 cases were filed in 2020, representing almost 30% of all accessibility cases filed in the United States.3 These claims go beyond the traditional complaints related to a website maintained by an organization. While desktop websites dominate the overall number of lawsuit claims nationally, mobile apps continue to get significant attention along with a new trend in video content related claims. These video claims demand that all video have closed captions and audio descriptions.4 The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has created a surge in the reliance on websites and other platforms to accommodate working from home, online learning, as well as ordering groceries, food or other items online in an effort to stay home and safe. However, along with this substantial increase in demand, many users who rely on accessibility features have found many websites and related mobile applications to be inaccessible for their needs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather H. Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com

Hunton Andrews Kurth Promotes Insurance Recovery Lawyer Andrea (Andi) DeField to Partner

April 05, 2021 — Lorelie S. Masters - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Effective April 1, 2021, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP has promoted insurance recovery lawyer, Andi DeField, and six other attorneys, to partner. “Andi has been a superstar in our practice since the day she arrived,” said insurance recovery practice head, Walter Andrews, adding that “Andi’s promotion reflects the incredible hard work she has contributed to the practice and outstanding results she has achieved for our clients over the years.” A native of Miami, Andi ascended through the ranks at Hunton in its Miami office, joining the firm as a contract lawyer before earning promotions to associate, counsel and, now, partner. But Andi’s rapid ascension did not come without much hard work. Since joining the firm, “Andi has, year after year, consistently knocked the cover off the ball in terms of her tireless work ethic, the superior results she has achieved and her extraordinary aptitude for marketing herself, our practice and the firms many other practices,” said insurance recovery partner, Mike Levine. Levine added, “Andi is an amazing lawyer and a true champion for her clients. I’m proud to now call her my partner.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com

Claims against Broker for Insufficient Coverage Fail

May 10, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After a coverage dispute for damage caused by Hurricane Harvey was settled, the insured's claims against its insurance broker for providing insufficient coverage were dismissed. Hitchcock Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57452 (S.D. Texas Feb. 26, 2021). The School District suffered $3.5 million in property damage after Hurricane Harvey struck. Its insurers denied coverage and the School District sued. During the litigation, the School District learned that the policies contained an arbitration clause and a New York choice of law provision. Rather than pursue its claims in arbitration, the School District settled with its insurers and sued its broker for failing to obtain insurance without arbitration or choice of law provisions. The broker moved to dismiss The School District claimed that it had to settle with the insurers for less than what it would have settled had the arbitration and choice of law provisions not been in its policies. The court found this novel theory to be based upon pure speculation 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

U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

June 11, 2014 — Earl Forte – White and Williams LLP
On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 12-1200, in which the court confirmed that the power of the nation’s bankruptcy courts to hear and decide cases involving state-created private rights in which the bankruptcy proof of claim process has not been directly invoked, is severely limited by Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The decision in Executive Benefits, while providing some clarity to practitioners and the public following the Court’s June 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), nevertheless will make a substantial portion of bankruptcy litigation matters more cumbersome and potentially more expensive to guide through the bankruptcy system. Clients and practitioners are best advised to hire knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the more complex procedural waters created by this decision. Although the Court in Executive Benefits did resolve a pending procedural question that had dogged practitioners since Stern was decided in 2011, the Court’s decision in Executive Benefits now makes it abundantly clear that many disputes that were previously heard and decided in the nation’s bankruptcy courts can no longer be decided there and must be submitted to the district courts for full de novo review and entry of a final judgment or order. It is difficult to see how this decision will not make bankruptcy litigation more cumbersome and expensive by adding an additional layer of judicial involvement to many matters, notably to fraudulent transfer and other avoidance “claw back” actions that historically have been decided in the bankruptcy courts and used famously in Madoff and other cases as an efficient device for creating value for creditors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Earl Forte, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Forte may be contacted at fortee@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES