Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

September 05, 2022 — Donald Verfurth, Sally Kim, Stephanie Ries & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
Ever since the Washington Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P.3d 239 (2013), insurance coverage attorneys have been struggling to define the exact parameters of the Cedell ruling in order to safeguard the attorney-client privilege as to the communications between the insurer and its counsel. As a brief background, the Washington Supreme Court held in Cedell that there is a presumption of no attorney-client privilege in a lawsuit involving bad faith claims handling. However, an insurer can overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege by showing that its counsel provided legal advice regarding the insurer’s potential liability under the policy and law, and did not engage in any quasi-fiduciary activities, i.e. claims handling activities, such as investigating, evaluating, adjusting or processing the insured’s claim. Since Cedell, various trial courts have held that the following activities by an insurer’s counsel constitute quasi-fiduciary conduct that do not overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege, resulting in an order to produce documents and/or to permit the deposition of the insurer’s counsel:

Insurer’s attorney being the primary or sole point of contact with the insured for the insurer;
Insurer’s attorney requesting documents from the insured that are relevant to the investigation of the claim;
Insurer’s attorney communicating directly with the insured or the insured’s counsel regarding claims handling issues or payments;
Insurer’s attorney interviewing witnesses for purposes of the investigation of the claim;
Insurer’s attorney conducting an examination under oath of the insured;
Insurer’s attorney drafting proposed or final reservation of rights letter or denial letter to the insured; and
Insurer’s attorney conducting settlement negotiations in an underlying litigation.

Reprinted courtesy of Donald Verfurth, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Sally Kim, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Stephanie Ries, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Kyle Silk-Eglit, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Mr. Verfurth may be contacted at dverfurth@grsm.com Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com Ms. Ries may be contacted at sries@grsm.com Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act

June 17, 2024 — David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On June 17, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court delivered a significant opinion in the case of City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association (Case No. 22SC293). This decision provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) and the economic loss rule in the context of construction defect claims. Background of the Case The case arose from a construction defect dispute between the City of Aspen, which served as the developer and declarant for the affordable housing condominiums at issue, and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, the HOA created by Aspen to manage the association after the period of declarant control. The Association alleged that Aspen breached various warranties related to the construction of affordable housing units, leading to structural deficiencies. Aspen argued that the CGIA barred these claims because they could lie in tort. The Lower Court’s Decision The district court initially agreed with Aspen, holding that the Association’s claims sounded in tort and were therefore barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the principle that governmental immunity protects public entities from liability for claims that ‘lie in tort or could lie in tort,’ as established by the CGIA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

South Dakota Supreme Court Holds That Faulty Workmanship Constitutes an “Occurrence”

September 14, 2017 — Samantha Martino - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The South Dakota Supreme Court recently determined that damage resulting from a subcontractor’s failure to test soil compaction before constructing a home constituted an “accident” and was therefore an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy. In Owners Ins. Co. v. Tibke Construction, Inc., the homeowners hired Tibke Construction, Inc. to build a new house, and Tibke Construction hired subcontractor Jerry’s Excavating to perform excavation work. The homeowners contended that Jerry’s Excavating failed to do soil compaction testing before commencing construction, which resulted in the home being built on highly expansive soils, leading to damage including excessive settlement, cracking and structural unsoundness. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Samantha Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

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

$24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

November 21, 2017 — Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin
Originally published by CDJ on March 16, 2017 Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWL Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379 COURT OF APPEAL EXTENDS GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. v. MIDTEC, INC., HOLDING THAT CIVIL CODE §936 CREATES A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD FOR CLAIMS AGAINST MATERIAL SUPPLIERS BROUGHT UNDER SB800. The Fourth District California Court of Appeal recently published its decision Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895 and §936) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier's negligence or breach of contract. Civil Code §936 states in relevant part, that it applies "to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract .... [T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, individual product manufacturer, or design professional with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

December 13, 2021 — Ryan Bennett - White and Williams LLP
In Sheckler v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co, 2021 IL App (3d) 190500, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 593, Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Insurer) paid its insured, Ronald McIntosh (McIntosh), for property damage following a fire in an apartment he rented to Monroe and Dorothy Sheckler (the Shecklers). Insurer filed suit against Wayne Workman (Workman), who performed service work on an oven in the Shecklers’ apartment that leaked gas and resulted in a fire. Workman filed a third-party complaint against the Shecklers for contribution and the Shecklers tendered the defense of the claim to Insurer. Insurer refused the tender and the Shecklers filed a declaratory judgment action. In the court below, the Shecklers argued that, as tenants, they were co-insureds on McIntosh’s property insurance policy. Following a liberal interpretation of precedent from the Supreme Court of Illinois in Dix Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaFramboise, 597 N.E. 2d 622 (Ill. 1992), an Illinois appellate court ruled that Insurer – who provided property insurance – must defend the tenants of a rental property from contribution claims if the tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s policy. In Sheckler, the Shecklers hired Workman to fix a broken burner on a gas stove. Finding that additional parts were needed, Workman left while the Shecklers waited inside. While waiting—and despite the smell of gas filling the kitchen—Mr. Sheckler lit the stove. “Kaboom!” wrote the appellate court when describing the scene. A fire erupted and caused substantial damage to the apartment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Bennett, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com

California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

December 21, 2020 — Nicholas Korst - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent case in California, the Court of Appeals held that a surety who had issued a public works payment bond cannot rely on the “Pay-When-Paid” provision in the subcontract as a defense against the subcontractor’s claim against the payment bond.[1] The case was a public works project in Kern County, CA where the North Edwards Water District (the “District”) hired Clark Bros., Inc. (“Clark”) as the general contractor to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired subcontractor Crosno Construction (“Crosno”) to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. The subcontract included the following “pay-when-paid” provision, which provided a definition of “reasonable time”: If the Owner or other responsible party delays in making any payment to the Contractor from which payment to Subcontractor is made, Contractor and its sureties shall have a reasonable time to make payment. “Reasonable time” shall be determined according to the relevant circumstances, but in no event shall be less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against the Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment, including (but not limited to) mechanics lien remedies. (emphasis added). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nick Korst, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Korst may be contacted at nicholas.korst@acslawyers.com

Potential Construction Liabilities Contractors Need to Know

September 21, 2020 — Manipal Dhariwal - Construction Executive
The outbreak of COVID-19 started in early December 2019, gradually expanding to the other countries of the world. The spread of the pandemic did not just affect the world in terms of health, but also made industries suffer across all verticals—leading to a few unique challenges for construction contractors. From financial imbalance to trouble retaining cash flow, the circumstances have turned to be completely unfavorable for the contractors that rely on banks for essential surety credits to sustain. To prevent loss of liquidity, the contractors are leaning toward construction accounting software and other technology to keep their accounting data in place and avoid risks with project deliveries. But still, there are many other factors that must be considered to maintain cash flow for potential credit availability such as debt agreements and lines of credit, which involve financing of equipment and vehicles. Nevertheless, it is completely the responsibility of the contractors to stick with the guidelines related to the line of credit and debt agreements which in most cases are covenant ratios. Reprinted courtesy of Manipal Dhariwal, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES