Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

April 03, 2019 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Recently a client asked me to review a contract for his Firm. The Owner, who had prepared the draft, had inserted a rather stringent “duty to defend” clause. As I told my client, a duty to defend clause is not a good idea for a couple of reasons. First, if you agree to provide a defense, what that means is that you are footing the bill for the Owner if the Owner is sued by another party. Think about that for a minute. You are paying legal fees for someone else’s legal defense. You may or may not be able to direct the litigation or have a say in who is hired. Can you say open check book? Secondly, and more importantly, the duty to defend is almost never insurable. What that means is that your professional liability carrier will not be footing the bill—your Firm will be doing it. This is not a case of adding the Owner as an additional insured, so do not confuse the two. Agreeing to a duty to defend is an extremely burdensome, and potentially costly, mistake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Court Extends Insurer Rights to Equitable Contribution

October 28, 2015 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Underwriters of Interest v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co. (No. D066615; filed 10/23/15), a California appeals court refused to enforce an “escape” other insurance clause in an insurer versus insurer contribution action, refused to enforce a Contractors Special Conditions endorsement and found that equitable tolling applied to rule that a nondefending insurer was obligated to reimburse defense costs incurred defending the two insurers’ common insured. Certain Underwriters provided CGL insurance to Pacific Trades Construction & Development in effect between October 23, 2001 and October 23, 2003. ProBuilders Specialty insured Pacific Trades from December 9, 2002 to December 9, 2004. When Pacific Trades was sued in construction defect actions arising out of the development and construction of single family homes, Underwriters provided a defense, while ProBuilders declined to participate. The case was ultimately settled and when Underwriters sued ProBuilders for contribution to the defense costs, the trial court granted summary judgment for ProBuilders, finding its other insurance clause precluded any obligation to contribute or reimburse Underwriters. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims

November 15, 2017 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Digital Journal reports that the California fire lawyers are comprised of four law firms, Baron & Budd, Singleton Law Firm, Dixon Diab & Chambers LLP, and Thornes Bartolotta McGuire. These firms filed suit against PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) on October 27th alleging that the brutal wildfires that swept through Northern California started when electrical infrastructure encountered vegetation. According to Digital Journal, more than 50 plaintiffs are being represented in this case who endured damages including “wrongful death, personal injuries, damage to or destruction of property, loss of cherished possessions, medical bills, evacuation expenses and lost wages.” John Fiske, an attorney at Baron & Budd stated, “through our team’s investigation to date, we believe that PG&E may have played a role in causing these fires.” Holding PG&E accountable for the 40 people killed, 8,400 structures destroyed, and 210,000 acres burned is their goal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”

June 10, 2024 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
In the construction industry, arbitration is a frequently agreed-upon and utilized dispute resolution method. The Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq., provides the underpinning and framework for how courts should handle litigation in connection with arbitration agreements. Where a party asserts that a claim brought in court should be subject to arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA provides that the action should be stayed. However, some courts have entertained a party’s request to dismiss a suit where the claim is subject to an arbitration agreement, creating a circuit split in the federal appeals courts. In Smith v. Spizzirri, 2024 WL 2193872, issued on May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court held that, absent some other defect (such as the lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction), Section 3 of the FAA requires a court which finds a claim is subject to an arbitration must stay the lawsuit during the arbitration proceedings rather than dismissing the action.[1] In so doing, the Court addressed a question that for years it left unanswered. While most Circuits held, prior to Smith, that Section 3 requires a court to stay the litigation pending an arbitral award; the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits each held that a court could dismiss an action in lieu of staying. In Smith, both parties acknowledged the underlying claims were arbitrable, but when the district court compelled arbitration, the court dismissed the action rather than staying the court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit (relying on its prior precedent) affirmed, with two judges noting that the Ninth Circuit’s approach was incorrect. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bwitry@lauriebrennan.com

Too Late for The Blame Game: Massachusetts Court Holds That the Statute of Repose Barred a Product Manufacturer from Seeking Contribution from a Product Installer

March 21, 2022 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., No. 21-cv-10389-AK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26712, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (District Court) considered whether a product manufacturer was barred by the Commonwealth’s six-year statute of repose for improvements to real property from joining the installer of the product as a third-party defendant. The court denied the defendant’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint to join the installer, finding that the installer completed its work more than six years prior to the motion being filed. This case reminds us that Massachusetts’ six-year statute of repose for improvement to real property also bars a defendant’s contribution claims against third parties. The Wangs Alliance case involves a subrogation action filed by State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance (Insurer) against Wangs Alliance Corp. (Wangs), a manufacturer of rope lighting. Insurer insured the homeowners, who experienced a fire in their home in 2018. The home was originally built in 2002 by Wellen Construction (Wellen). As part of the original construction, Wellen installed rope lighting manufactured by Wangs in the house. 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

California Court Invokes Equity to Stretch Anti-Subrogation Rule Principles

June 18, 2019 — Gus Sara & William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Frances Todd, Inc. 2019 Cal. App. Lexis 299, the Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, addressed whether a commercial condominium association’s carrier could subrogate against the tenants (aka lessees) of one of its member unit owners. After examining the condominium association’s declarations, as well as the lease terms between the owner and the lessees, the court held that the association’s carrier could not subrogate against the lessees because they were implied co-insureds on the policy. To reach its decision, the court explained that an insurer steps into the shoes of its insured, not the party with whom it is in privity. Although the first-party property portion of the association’s insurance policy did not, as required by the association’s declarations, have the owner listed as an additional named insured, the court held that it would be inequitable to treat the association as the sole insured for purposes of determining Western Heritage’s right to bring a subrogation action. In Western Heritage, William R. de Carion d/b/a Surfwood Properties (de Carion or Lessor), owned a commercial unit within a multi-unit commercial building. The building was managed by the East Shore Commercial Condominiums Owners’ Association (the Association). As a unit owner, de Carion was a member of the Association. The Association’s Declarations of Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) required the Association to procure fire insurance for the commercial units by adding the unit owners as additional named insureds. The CC&Rs also prohibited owners and their “tenants” from procuring their own fire insurance policies for the premises. In 2013, de Carion leased his commercial space to Frances Todd, Inc. d/b/a The Wooden Duck, Eric Todd Gellerman and Amy Frances Feber (Lessees). Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

January 19, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Blog
Upcoming blog posts will focus on common contract provisions found in construction contracts. Such provisions are not solely limited to construction contracts and can be found in many other types of business contracts as well. This post will highlight indemnity clauses. An indemnity clause is a common contract provision used to allocate risk between parties to a contract. The clause obligates one party (the Indemnitor) to protect the other party (the Indemnitee) from certain losses, typically arising from claims of third parties. It may require the Indemnitor to reimburse the Indemnitee for losses or expenses, or satisfy judgments, or even defend the Indemnitee in a lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

April 03, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Olympia Construction’s roofing division explained to the web site Thurston Talk how long “lifetime” warranties on shingles really last. Your lifetime? You’re likely to live out the effective period of your lifetime shingle warranty. They note that 100% coverage of the shingle replacement typically lasts only for ten years (and does not cover removal of the existing defective shingles). After that, coverage continues to decline without covering any of the labor. And this can be significant, since they noted that they have seen cases in which a batch of defective shingles means that every home on the block has a defect claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES