SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurance Agent Sued for Lapse in Coverage after House Collapses

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Property Casualty 360 reported a Hawaii case where the court ruled that an “insurance brokerage firm is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its employees, agents and independent contractors as long as they give the public the appearance that the individual is working as an agent of the brokerage.” The case involved a home that collapsed “during an attempted structural renovation.” The original insurance policy had lapsed, and the “application used to procure the second policy stated that there was no renovation work underway on the property, and thus contained a material misrepresentation which voided the second policy, the [homeowners] were left without insurance on the house.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

January 20, 2020 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
KONE supplies elevators, escalators, autowalks and maintenance and modernization solutions. I sat down with Kenneth Flannigan to discuss how BIM is changing KONE and what it means to the industry. KONE operates in over 60 countries, has around 1.3 million units in service, and moves over one billion people per day. The company’s mission is “to improve the flow of urban life.” Kenneth Flannigan is the BIM Solution Owner for the company. He acknowledges that even though KONE provides equipment and software innovation, in this day and age that’s not enough. “We’re a critical path item. How innovative are we if we’re not working on every single project in a shared 3D environment, like our customers?” Flannigan asks. KONE serves both indirect and paying customers. It works with influencers like architects and with general contractors, builders, and construction managers. It also has a life-cycle relationship with building owners, which is evidenced by the fact that over 30% of the company’s sales come from maintenance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

May 18, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. KLA-Tencor Corp. (No. H044890; filed 1/16/20, ord. pub. 2/13/20), a California appeals court ruled that commercial general liability insurance for personal and advertising injury, defined to include malicious prosecution, does not cover a Walker Process antitrust cause of action under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act for using a fraudulently procured patent to attempt to monopolize the market. Travelers insured KLA under commercial liability policies with coverage for personal and advertising injury liability, which was defined as “injury, other than ‘advertising injury’, caused by. . . (2) Malicious prosecution.” 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

---

An Uncharted Frontier: Nevada First State to Prohibit Defense-Within-Limits Provisions

July 10, 2023 — Geoffrey B. Fehling & Andrew S. Koelz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Nevada recently became the first state to prohibit defense-within-limits provisions in liability insurance policies. Defense-within-limits provisions—resulting in what’s called “eroding” or “wasting” policies—reduce the policy’s applicable limit of insurance by amounts the insurer pays to defend the policyholder against a claim or suit. These provisions are commonly included in errors and omissions (E&O), directors and officers (D&O) and other management liability policies. This is in contrast to other policies, most commonly commercial general liability policies, which provide defense “outside of limits” where defense costs do not reduce the policy’s limit. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrew S. Koelz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Koelz may be contacted at akoelz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Comparing it to a “complex construction defect action,” the California Court of Appeals for Orange County has rejected the claims of a group of mobile home owners that they should be certified as a class in their lawsuit against Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. The Appeals court sustained the judgment of the lower court. The court issued a decision in the case of Criswell v. MMR Family LLC on January 17, 2012.



The claims made by the group were that the owners and operators of the mobile home park had known of an “on-going and potentially worsening shallow groundwater condition on the property” and had “exacerbated the problem by changing ‘the configuration and drainage related to the hillside that abuts’ the park.” The homeowners claimed that the class should consist of “any past or current homeowner during the same time frame” who had experienced “the accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” “property damage to his/her mobilehome and/or other property resulting from drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” emotional distress related to drainage problems or mold, and finally health problems “resulting from exposure to drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins, in or around one’s home, lot, or common areas of the park.”



The lower court concluded that while the limits of the class were identifiable, they failed to constitute a class in other ways. First, the people affected were small enough in number that they could be brought together. They “are not so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the Court.”



The court noted that while many of the homeowners would have issues in common, they did not find “a well-defined community of interest among the class members.” The Appeals Court wrote that “the individual issues affecting each mobile home and homeowner will predominate over the common issue of the presence of standing or pooling water in and around the park.” The court noted that each home would be affected differently by water and “the ‘accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins.’”



While the court conceded that there would be common issues, such as the “defendants’ alleged concealment of excess moisture conditions and their allegedly negligent roadwork and landscaping,” they noted that “these common issues would be swamped by the swarm of individual determinations of property damage, emotional distress, and personal injury.” The Appeals Court cited an earlier case that ruled against certification “if a class action ‘will splinter into individual trials.’” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court that they could not proceed as a class.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts

February 24, 2020 — Nate Budde - Construction Executive
Anyone who has worked in the construction industry is familiar with the financial risks involved. With thin margins, cash flow issues and the litany of potential claims and damages that can arise, contractors need to be able to manage that risk properly. There is the right way of going about it, and there's a wrong way. Unfortunately, the wrong way (which involves using leverage and shifting risk to other parties) is the more prevalent approach. There are different contractual tactics employed by owners and general contractors alike to shift financial risk to other parties. Why is construction so financially risky? There are a few different reasons there is so much risk involved. First and foremost, the construction payment chain itself is inherently risky. Owners and lenders release project funds and trust that the money will reach everyone on the job. But that can’t happen unless each link in the payment chain passes payment to the next. That's a lot of trust for an industry that's not particularly known for it. Another reason is how construction projects begin. Upfront payment is rare in this industry. This leads to floating the initial costs, extending credit and potentially borrowing money to do so. And those who typically bear this burden, lower-tier subs and suppliers, are the least equipped for that level of risk. Reprinted courtesy of Nate Budde, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Budde may be contacted at nate@levelset.com

---

Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

March 28, 2018 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
After Hurricane Irma, I wrote an article that contractors should revisit the force majeure provisions in their construction contracts. Not later. But Now. The force majeure provision is an important provision in a construction contract to account for certain uncertainties that you have NO control over. Recently, another reason has given rise to contractors needing to revisit their force majeure provisions, as well as any provisions dealing with material escalations. Not later. But now. The imposition of raw steel and aluminum tariffs (tax on imported goods) and the back-and-forth regarding a potential trade war leads to the kind of uncertainty that should be assessed as a risk. A risk in both time and cost from material escalations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Alleging Property Damage in Construction Defect Lawsuit

September 14, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When there is a construction defect lawsuit, there is an insurance coverage issue or consideration. As I have said repeatedly in other articles, it is all about maximizing insurance coverage regardless of whether you are the plaintiff prosecuting the construction defect claim or the contractor(s) alleged to have committed the construction defect and property damage. It is about triggering first, the insurer’s duty to defend, and second, the insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for the property damage. The construction defect claim and lawsuit begins with how the claim and, then, lawsuit is couched knowing that the duty to defend is triggered by allegations in the lawsuit (complaint). Thus, preparing the lawsuit (complaint) is vital to maximize the insurer’s duty to defend its insured. In a recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit, Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC, 2020 WL 4345199 (11th Cir. 2020), a general contractor was sued for construction defects in the construction of a custom home. A dispute arose pre-completion and the owner hired another contractor to complete the house and remediate construction defects. The contractor’s CGL insurer originally provided a defense to the general contractor but then withdrew the defense and filed an action for declaratory relief asking for the declaration that it had no duty to defend the contractor because the underlying lawsuit did NOT allege property damage. The trial court agreed with the contractor and granted summary judgment in its favor finding that the underlying complaint did not allege property damage beyond defective work. But, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed. 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

---