Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

March 14, 2018 — Valerie Moore and Christopher Kendrick - Publications & Insights
In Khorsand v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (No. B280273, filed 2/27/18), a California appeals court affirmed an appraisal award favorable to a homeowners insurer, ruling that it was improper to admit as evidence in opposition to a petition to confirm the award a declaration from the policyholders’ appraiser, except for the limited purpose of showing improprieties in the appraisal, bias, partiality or other improper conduct. The homeowners had a pipe leak and submitted a claim. The insurer responded to an estimate from the owners’ adjuster by retaining an expert and paying an undisputed amount that was significantly less. Eleven months later the owners had upper deck damage and submitted another claim. Relying on the same expert, the insurer paid another undisputed amount significantly less than the owner’s estimate. The owners requested appraisal but the insurer denied the request, contending that the dispute was over coverage and outside the scope of appraisal. The owners’ petition for appraisal was granted, with the court ordering separate listing of items the insurer disputed regarding coverage or causation. The appraisal panel issued an award stating that total damage was $132,293, of which $96,530 was contested by the insurer. The insurer filed a petition to confirm the award, which was granted despite the fact that the owners’ appraiser had refused to sign it. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

“Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

April 18, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As they say, when it rains, it pours. Indemnity and insurance are the “Big Two” when it comes to risk avoidance on construction projects. The next case, LaBarbera v. Security National Security Company, 86 Cal.App.5th 1329 (2022), involves both. It’s an interesting case, which I think could have gone either way, involving claims by a higher-tiered party that they were a third party beneficiary under an insurance policy in which they were not named as an additional insured. The LaBarbera Case The Indemnity Provision and Insurance Policy In June 1016, Chris LaBarbera hired Richard Knight doing business as Knight Construction to remodel his house in Carmichael, California. The construction contract included an indemnity provision which provided that Knight would defend and indemnify LaBarbera from all claims arising out the remodeling work except for claims arising from LaBarbera’s sole negligence and willful misconduct. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Application of Set-Off When Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

February 22, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion from the Second District Court of Appeal in Hayward Baker, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7767859 (2nd DCA 2020) demonstrates that the significant issues test for determining the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees applies to disputes involving payment bonds under Florida’s Lien Law (Florida Statutes Chapter 713). The significant issues test is more or less a subjective test where the party that is deemed to have prevailed on the significant issues in the case is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in the case. A trial court has discretion to determine the prevailing party which will not be disturbed absent an appellate court finding the trial court abused that discretion. This significant issues test is an important consideration so that parties understand just because money ends up going their way does not necessarily mean they prevailed on the significant issues in the case. It could mean that. But it may not based on the claims and moneys involved in the dispute. 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

Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015). Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired. After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 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

Dallas Home Being Built of Shipping Containers

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Some people wonder what it is. Others think it’s an eyesore. A Dallas architect is constructing a home using shipping containers for the upper story. Matt Mooney is using fourteen in all, with seven running across the front of the building. Mr. Mooney intends to have glass doors at the front back. Most of the home’s living area will be constructed in the shipping containers. The bottom floor will be for storage and garage. Mr. Mooney says that “30 or 40 times a day” people are stopping to look at the house. He also said that the delivery of the shipping containers brought some attention. “People call these things shipping containers, but technically they are prefabricated steel modules.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Benefits of Incorporating AI Into the Construction Lifecycle

December 23, 2024 — Ian Warner - Construction Executive
Interest in artificial intelligence has been spreading like wildfire over the past few years. AI is not a new term for Trimble, which has been capturing and leveraging construction data for decades. From hardware to software, the field to the office or among stakeholders, harnessing and making meaning out of data is the crux of Trimble’s business. Generative AI is simply a new set of tools that provide a richer narrative around data, making it more insightful and actionable. As a company that helps connect stakeholders across the entire construction lifecycle—design, construction and operations/ maintenance—AI has been woven in and leveraged across a number of Trimble solutions to help contractors do more with less, while also giving them greater decision-making power and the ability to focus on other key challenges. While the use cases for AI are diverse and ever-changing, below are a few key areas where Trimble has doubled down on AI, with the goal of making contractors’ jobs less cumbersome and repetitive, safer and more capable of being upskilled—efforts which will only continue to grow in the coming years. Reprinted courtesy of Ian Warner, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Safety, Compliance and Productivity on the Jobsite

November 18, 2019 — Matthew Ramage - Construction Executive
With any project, managing a large contingency of workers—all with varying levels of security clearance—can be a logistical headache. On the majority of construction sites, managers lack the resources to quickly and accurately identify all onsite personnel and ensure the right labor, equipment and materials are in the right place at the right time. Equally important, construction managers need to know if worker certifications are current and only allow access to authorized areas. Multiple factors compound the need for better transparency across the workforce, including:

Safety. Construction work is inherently dangerous. In 2017, nearly 1,000 fatalities occurred on construction sites. This means that the industry accounted for more than 20% of private sector fatalities across all industries.
Regulatory. The Federal government has a heightened awareness of jobsite dangers and is targeting companies that are not making every effort to maximize the workers’ safety.
Security. Sites in urban environments require round-the-clock protection from urban explorers, thieves and the general public.
Employee wage disputes. Lawsuits and disputes over wages and hourly employment are increasing.
Reduced productivity. It can be difficult to measure and track productivity in construction.

Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Ramage, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

October 29, 2014 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
In Colorado, the “complaint rule,” also known as the “four corners rule,” requires an insurer to provide a defense when an underlying complaint alleges any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. This can result in a situation where an insurer has a duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy. In KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance, 2014 WL 4409876, District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch recognized an exception to the complaint rule. In doing so, Judge Matsch determined that a court may look beyond the complaint to judicial orders preceding the filing of the complaint to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend. Therefore, a party may not be able to assert unsupported facts in a complaint for the sole purpose of triggering an insurance policy. KF 103 v. American Family arose out of an underlying easement dispute. In the underlying case, KF 103-CV, LLC (“KF 103”) purchased a piece of property from the Infinity Group. As a condition of the purchase agreement, Infinity Group was required to complete improvements to boundary streets and the intersection of Ski Lane and Sorpresa Lane. Several adjoining property owners (the “neighbors”) objected to the modification of the intersection because it violated an express easement (the “easement”) that provided access to their properties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES