SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

December 21, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court refused to remand the insureds' case after the insurer removed from state court. Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15681 (D. Haw. Nov. 10, 2016). The underlying case was filed in state court on Maui. The underlying plaintiffs were condominium owners who brought claims against the insured, Maui Land and Pineapple Co., Inc. (MLP), and other defendants allegedly involved in the development of the project. Ryan Churchill, one of the named defendants, served as president of MLP and was on the board of the project's Association of Apartment Owners (AOAO). The underlying plaintiffs asserted claims for: breach of fiduciary duty; seeking access to books and records of the AOAO; and for injunctive/declaratory relief against MLP, Mr. Churchill, and all other defendants. 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

---

First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit

October 24, 2023 — Geoffrey B. Fehling & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. BAS Holding Corp., the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected an insurer’s “insupportable” defense that the insured company had breached its duty to cooperate by refusing the insurer’s request for an examination under oath of the company’s president. The decision is a reminder that, while examinations under oath can be effective tools to allow the insurer to properly investigate a claim, an insured’s duty to cooperate is not boundless and does not demand attendance at examinations that are not reasonably requested. Background BAS Holding involves the destruction of a landmark building in Boston by an arsonist. The owner, BAS Holding Corporation, submitted an insurance claim to its property insurer to recover insurance proceeds for the damage to the building. The insurer investigated the claim to determine whether the damage to the building was covered and issued a reservation of rights letter suggesting that the policy may not provide coverage for the fire. As part of its investigation, the insurer requested an examination under oath as a condition to coverage under the policy, which led to BAS presenting the property’s operations coordinator for an interview. Shortly after examining the operations coordinator, the insurer sought another examination of BAS’s president and owner, as well as five other employees. In response, BAS questioned whether the additional examinations were “reasonably required” and said that it would consider the requests if the insurer could explain why they were necessary. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

June 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Work stopped on a $7 million construction project in Oak Harbor, Washington, after three sets of Native American remains were found. The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation had suggested that the project employ an archaeologist. City, state, and tribal officials are determining what will happen next. The Seattle Times reports that Jim Slowik, Oak Harbor’s mayor, has asked for a review of why no archaeologist was part of the project.

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Law- Where Pragmatism and Law Collide

January 06, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
If there is one “theme” to Construction Law Musings, those that read regularly hopefully see that I take my role as counselor to construction companies seriously. Aside from the fact that litigation and arbitration are both expensive and not a great way for any business, particularly a construction business, to make money, I have found construction professionals to be a pragmatic group of people that would rather solve a problem than go to court. I have also discussed the need for a good foundation for the project in the form of a well drafted and properly negotiated contract. This contract sets out the rights of the parties and essentially makes the “law” for your construction project. Virginia courts will not renegotiate the terms for you and while this can lead to problems where parties either don’t understand the terms or don’t work to level the terms, it does mean that the parties know what the expectations are where the expectations are properly set, preferably with the help of your friendly neighborhood construction attorney and counselor at law. Practical considerations such as your feel for the other party and which terms are worth forgoing the work for should drive your considerations almost as much as the legal implications. 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

---

San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to San Jose Mercury News, a 250 million dollar apartment complex being built in San Francisco, California received “catastrophic damage” from a fire on March 11th. The complex was being developed by BRE Properties, Inc., and “was slated to open sometime later this year.” Initial reports blamed high winds for the start of the blaze, however, San Jose Mercury news reported that “downtown San Francisco experienced wind speeds of no more than 10 mph Tuesday, and that heavy winds were not expected Tuesday night” according to the National Weather Service. “Representatives for [BRE Properties, Inc.] were not available for comment,” as reported by San Jose Mercury News. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

September 03, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Prompt payment penalty cases do not come around very often, but when they do, there is bound to be fireworks. In James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., et al. (No. C072169, filed 8/27/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District upheld the trial court's discretion to not award prevailing party attorneys' fees to the party who won a prompt payment dispute. California Business and Professions Code §7108.5 and Public Contract Code §§7107 and 10262 are the mechanisms for obtaining prompt payment relief in California. As shown by the outcome, it is possible to win and lose at the same time. West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) was the prime contractor on a school construction project for Stockton Unified School District. West Bay entered into a subcontract agreement with James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) on the project. During construction there were disagreements between West Bay and Harris regarding the contractual scope of work, and Harris performed work it believed was outside the contract, believing it would be paid for the additional work. After West Bay refused to pay for the additional work, Harris left the project, and West Bay hired another subcontractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Disappearing Data: Avoid Losing Electronic Information to Avoid Losing the Case

February 01, 2022 — Daniel C. Wennogle & Jennifer Knight Lang - Construction Executive
It happens: A contractor on a delayed project ends up in litigation over liquidated damages, but the key communications regarding delays and approvals were sent and received by the project manager on a mobile device using text messages and personal email accounts. Unfortunately, the project manager left the company a year ago on bad terms and has changed phones. The information that would serve to mitigate the contractor’s liability has disappeared. With better awareness and policies for capturing and managing electronic information, this is avoidable. Proactive and effective management of electronically stored information on construction projects can not only reduce costs and discovery disputes should litigation arise but can also provide critical evidence in reducing liability exposure in such disputes. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as most state rules, which often mirror federal rules), provide for sanctions if a party fails to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) that should have been preserved in anticipation of litigation but is lost due to the failure to take reasonable steps to preserve it. Even in arbitration, where discovery and disclosure obligations are often more limited than in the court setting, preservation of ESI can help strengthen claims and defenses, avoiding accusations of spoliation that can derail a case. Arbitrators can also fashion appropriate sanctions for destruction of relevant evidence, not to mention the impact that apparent spoliation can have on a party’s credibility. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel C. Wennogle & Jennifer Knight Lang, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Ms. Lang may be contacted at jennifer.lang@moyewhite.com Mr. Wennogle may be contacted at daniel.wennogle@moyewhite.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute

November 12, 2019 — Jeremy S. Macklin & Mark F. Wolfe - Traub Lieberman Perspectives
In a written decision dated August 12, 2019, authored by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurer client, affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the insurer’s favor. Partners, Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe, represented the insurer client in the District Court and before the Seventh Circuit. Macklin argued the case before the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the insurer on May 28, 2019. The insurer client issued an excess liability policy to Deerfield Construction, a telecommunications construction company, which incorporated the notice requirements of the primary liability insurance policy issued by American States Insurance Company. The insured’s employee was involved in an automobile accident in 2008, during the effective dates of the excess liability policy. A lawsuit arising from the accident was filed and served in 2009. While Deerfield Construction, through its retained insurance intermediary, provided immediate notice of the accident and lawsuit to the primary liability insurer, the insurer client did not receive notice of either the accident or the lawsuit from any source until December 2014, approximately six weeks before trial. Following a $2.3 million judgment, the insurer client filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a finding that Deerfield Construction materially breached the excess liability policy by not providing reasonable notice of the accident or the lawsuit, as required by the policy. The District Court found that the notice given to the insurer client was unreasonable as a matter of law. The District Court rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that an insurance broker involved in the purchase of the excess liability policy, Arthur J. Gallagher, was the insurer client’s apparent agent for purposes of accepting notice. The District Court also rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that the insurer client’s acts of requesting discovery, reviewing trial reports, and participating in settlement discussions raised equitable estoppel concerns. Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and Mark F. Wolfe, Traub Lieberman Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com Mr. Wolfe may be contacted at mwolfe@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---