SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Part of the Whole: Idaho District Court Holds Economic Loss Rule Bars Tort Claims Related to Water Supply Line that was Part of Home Purchase

October 03, 2022 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. v. LSP Prods. Grp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139566, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff’s tort claims against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective toilet water supply line were barred by the economic loss rule. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that, since the supply line was a part of the home when the plaintiff’s insureds purchased it, the plaintiff was barred by the economic loss rule from bringing tort claims against the manufacturer. The District Court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion, ruling that the supply line was a part of the home, which was the subject of the transaction, at the time it was purchased. Thus, the District Court held that the economic loss rule barred the plaintiff’s tort claims. In 2012, Melissa Norris and Richard Meyers (collectively, the Homeowners) purchased a newly built home in Eagle, Idaho. In 2016, a toilet supply line in one of the bathrooms began leaking, causing water damage to the home as well as to window blinds, an oven and dishwasher. The Homeowners also incurred a loss of rental income. The Homeowners submitted a claim to Safeco Insurance Company (Insurer), their property insurance carrier, who ultimately covered the Homeowners’ losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

June 03, 2019 — Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In reversing summary judgment for defendants, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that homeowners suing their real estate broker for negligence did not need an expert witness to establish the elements of their causes of action. Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal. App. 5th 637. Typically, expert witnesses are required to establish the standard of care in professional negligence cases. But in Ryan, the court of appeal held that the “common knowledge” exception applied despite this general rule, because the conduct required by the particular circumstance of the case was within the common knowledge of a layman. The conduct in question here? The broker’s failure to disclose to his client that the client’s neighbor told him that she planned extensive renovations that would obstruct the client’s property’s ocean views. Ryan and Patricia Ryan (the Ryans) hired defendant Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., doing business as Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty (Sotheby’s) and defendant real estate broker to sell their residence in La Jolla, California. During an open house at the residence, a neighbor informed the Ryan’s real estate broker that she planned extensive renovations at her home that would, among other things, permanently obstruct the Ryan’s westerly ocean views and take several years to complete. The real estate broker never informed the Ryans of this, nor the subsequent buyer. The subsequent buyer purchased the property for $3.86 million, and defendants received $96,500 as commission for the sale. The day after escrow closed, the buyers learned of the renovations, and sought to rescind the purchase. Based on advice of defendants, the Ryans refused, and the dispute proceeded to arbitration. The buyer obtained a rescission of the purchase, with the Ryans order to pay damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $1 million. The Ryans then sued Sotheby’s and the real estate broker to recover these amounts and damages caused by defendants’ alleged negligence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

---

Construction Legislation Likely to Take Effect July 1, 2020

April 27, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Coronavirus is dominating the news and planning for the effects of COVID-19 is a big deal for construction companies in the Commonwealth. However, these issues, though immediate, are not the only ones that have popped up here at the beginning of 2020. Several bills that I have been monitoring (here and here) have recently passed both the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate and are on their way to the Governor for signature (a signature that is most likely going to happen in each case). Among those bills that did not pass are a bill that would have eliminated right to work in Virginia and allowed so called “closed shops” as well as fair share fees legislation that would have required those that were not part of a union to pay certain portions of union expenses. 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

---

Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .

January 05, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
We’ve talked about the Privette doctrine before (see here, here, and here). The Privette doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, provides in general that project owners and contractors are not responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors they have hired, the rationale being that such workers should already be covered under their employers’ workers’ compensation insurance policies. In the twenty years since Privette was decided, however, several exceptions have evolved that have narrowed the doctrine. One exception, known as the retained control exception, allows a contractor’s employees to sue the “hirer” of the contractor (that is, the higher-tiered party who “hired” the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured) when the hirer retains control over any part of the work and negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the employee’s injury. Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198. Another exception, known as the nondelegable duty exception, permits an injured worker to recover against a hirer when the hirer has assumed a nondelegable duty, including statutory and regulatory duties, that it breaches in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Padilla v. Pomona College (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 661. In a recently decided case, Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc., Case No. B268937 (November 17, 2016), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District examined the application of the Hooker and Padilla exceptions where a general contractor was contractually responsible for overall site safety. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

January 18, 2021 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc., ----Cal.App.5th--- (November 23, 2020), the California First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of SBC Insurance Services ("SBC") regarding a claim for water damage sustained by a residence owned by St. Mary & John Coptic Church ("St. Mary") under property coverage afforded by a policy issued by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company ("Philadelphia"). The policy was procured by SBC on behalf of St. Mary. Philadelphia denied coverage of the claim based on the vacancy exclusion in its policy, but entered into a settlement and loan receipt agreement, whereby St. Mary gave Philadelphia the right to control litigation in St. Mary’s name against SBC or third parties who might be liable for the loss in exchange for a loan of money to repair and remediate the damage sustained by the residence. The loan was to be repaid out of any recovery made against SBC or third parties. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of SBC and held that the vacancy exclusion was ambiguous. Essentially, the exclusion did not apply to the time period prior to the time St. Mary purchased the residence, such that the 60-day vacancy requirement could not be satisfied. The trial court reasoned that since St. Mary did not have an insurable interest in the property before it purchased the property, the 60-day requirement did not include the period before such residence was purchased and St. Mary held an insurable interest. The parties’ dispute arose of out of the Pope of the Coptic Church requesting St. Mary to purchase a home to be used as his papal residence in the Western United States. St. Mary also intended to use the home as a residence for visiting bishops. The home was purchased on May 28, 2015. As part of the purchase, SBC placed the home under St. Mary’s commercial policy, rather than purchasing a separate homeowner’s policy for the residence. Subsequently, the home sustained water damage due to a broken pipe. The water damage was discovered on July 24, 2015, 57 days after the inception of the Philadelphia policy and the loss. St. Mary tendered the property loss to Philadelphia, which denied coverage of the claim based on the reasoning that the home had been vacant for 60 consecutive days prior to the loss. Subsequently, St. Mary filed suit against SBC after securing the loan receipt agreement with Philadelphia based on the argument that the vacancy exclusion barred coverage of the claim and SBC breached its duty of care by not securing the proper coverage of the home. The trial court entered judgment in favor of SBC finding that the vacancy exclusion did not apply to bar coverage of the loss, such that SBC did not breach its duty of care owed to St. Mary as its broker. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

October 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii State Bar convention will be on October 24, 2014, at the Hawaiian Hilton. The Insurance Coverage Litigation Section will make a presentation from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Three presentations will be made. First, Richard C. Mosher (Anderson Kill), Kathy Dang (Marsh), and Beau Monday (Hawaiian Telcom) will discuss cyber-liability claims and insurance options. Next, David R. Harada-Stone (Tom Petrus & Miller) and I (Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert) will address "occurrences," i.e., deciding on and the impact of determining the number of occurrences in particular factual settings. 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

---

Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Maryland Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, recently reaffirmed that condominium association have broad discretion in suing for construction defects in when they are representing at least two unit owners. Nicholas D. Cowie of the Baltimore-based construction defect legal firm Cowie & Mott, gives his summary of the case on his firm’s web site. Mr. Cowie notes that the Council of Unit Owners of Bentley Place Condominium sued the developer and builder for construction defects in both common areas and within units, representing itself and “two or more” unit owners. A jury awarded $6.6 million; the builder and developer appealed. The court ruled on the appeal that the Council of Unit Owners had a right to pursue these claims, and could recover full damage to common elements, even if some owners are time-barred due to their date of purchase. Mr. Cowie represented the Council of Unit Owners during the lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Keep It Simple: Summarize (Voluminous Evidence, That Is...)

October 02, 2023 — Steve Swart - The Dispute Resolver
"The most complex analyses grow beautifully simple as they become public objects.” Philip Rieff, Fellow Teachers (1973), quoted in JOHN BARTLETT, BARTLETT’S FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS 800 (Geoffrey O’Brien gen. ed., 18th ed. 2012) In a recent ABA Forum on Construction Law Webinar, a panelist with substantial experience as an arbitrator explained that documents are the most important evidence in a construction dispute. Fact-finders, she said, focus on contemporaneous project records more than witness testimony to vet what happened. But, even a small to mid-sized construction project can generate millions of pages of documents. That is particularly true when disputes involve loss of productivity, delay, acceleration, and disruption. The volume of records related to entitlement and damages (e.g., timesheets, accounting, equipment logs, schedule files, meeting minutes, etc.) can overwhelm and confuse — not to mention bore — the fact finder. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Swart, Williams Mullen
Mr. Swart may be contacted at sswart@williamsmullen.com

---