SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Hartford Courant reports that Connecticut is trying a very old tactic in a construction defect suit. The law library building at the University of Connecticut suffered from leaks which have now been repaired. The state waited twelve years after was complete to file lawsuit, despite that Connecticut has a six-year statute of limitations on construction defect claims. Connecticut claims that the statute of limitations does apply to the state.



The state is arguing that a legal principle from the thirteenth century allows it to go along with its suit. As befits a medieval part of common law, the principle is called “nullum tempus occurrit regi,” or “time does not run against the king.” In 1874, the American Law Register said that nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae “has been adopted in every one of the United States” and “is now firmly established law.”



In the case of Connecticut, Connecticut Solicitor General Gregory D’Auria said that “the statute of limitations does not apply to the state.” He also noted that “the state did not ‘wait’ to file the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed only after all other options and remedies were exhausted.”



Connecticut also argued that “nullus tempus occurrit regi” applied in another construction defect case at the York Correctional Institution. The judge in that case ruled in December 2008 to let the case proceed. But in the library case, Judge William T. Cremins ruled in February 2009 that the statute of limitations should apply to the state as well. Both cases have been appealed, with the library case moving more quickly toward the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Read the full story…

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

---

Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

November 01, 2022 — Brian Poage - Construction Executive
Risk mitigation is a bigger part of managing construction projects than most people outside the industry realize. Construction is a risky business by nature. However, with the right tools, contractors can protect their businesses from costly litigation and keep jobsites safer and more productive. Modern technology helps increase project visibility for internal and external stakeholders, helping them monitor risks and resolve potential issues as quickly as possible. How does increased visibility reduce risk? The most common causes of litigation in construction are quality issues, schedule delays and injuries. Each of these risks can be reduced with better communication and documentation. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Poage, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

August 03, 2022 — Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Because of the potential exposure associated with wildfires, many insurers have attempted to withdraw from the property coverage market in various states. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the challenges businesses and individuals face in obtaining wildfire insurance coverage, and the regulatory scheme that is intended to help them secure adequate coverage. Given the increasing exposures associated with climate change, numerous insurers have sought to withdraw from the wildfire-related coverage market or increase rates to a level where they are effectively unavailable. States have been resistant to their doing so. As one commentator reports, “[e]ven where insurers have tried to withdraw policies or raise rates to reduce climate-related liabilities, state regulators have forced them to provide affordable coverage anyway, simply subsidizing the cost of underwriting such a risk policy or, in some cases, offering it themselves.” At least 30 states have developed regulation, referred to as “Fair Access to Insurance Requirements” (FAIR), to ensure the continued availability of insurance. The FAIR plan provides a channel to insurance for property owners who would be stuck without any reasonable access to insurance without state intervention. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

August 31, 2020 — Stacy M. Manobianca - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded, in Nautilus Insurance Co. v. 200 Christian Street Partners, LLC., that a duty to defend is triggered when product-related allegations are pled in connection with a claim for defective construction. In Nautilus, the coverage dispute arose out of two independent underlying lawsuits in which homeowners alleged that the homes built by 200 Christian Street Partners (“Christian Street”) were defectively constructed. Christian Street tendered the claim to its insurer, Nautilus Insurance Co. (“Nautilus”), for defense and indemnity.1 Nautilus filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend Christian Street in the underlying actions.2 Specifically, Nautilus asserted that it was not required to provide a defense in the underlying actions because Pennsylvania law does not consider faulty workmanship to constitute an “occurrence” and, therefore, to trigger the policy’s insuring agreement and the insurer’s duty to defend.3 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

---

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

August 19, 2015 — Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLP
In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Extreme Flooding Overwhelms New York Roadways, Killing 1 Person

July 24, 2023 — Associated Press - Bloomberg
NEW YORK (AP) — Heavy rain spawned extreme flooding in New York’s Hudson Valley that killed at least one person, swamped roadways and forced road closures on Sunday night, as much of the rest of the Northeast U.S. braced Monday for potentially punishing rains. As the storm moved east, the National Weather Service extended flash flood warnings into Connecticut, including the cities of Stamford and Greenwich, before creeping into Massachusetts. Forecasters said some areas could get as much as 5 inches (12 centimeters) of rain. In New York's Hudson Valley, rescue teams found the body of a woman in her 30s who drowned after being swept away while trying to evacuate her home, Orange County Executive Steven Neuhaus told WABC-TV. Officials were waiting for the medical examiner's office to arrive, he said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

---

Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

February 02, 2017 — James R. Lynch - Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
A customer shopping at Walmart’s outdoor garden center in Clarkston, Washington, reached down to brush aside a stick covering a price tag for bags of mulch stored on wooden pallets. The “stick” turned out to be a rattlesnake, and bit his hand. The customer sued Walmart on the legal basis of “premises liability,” claiming that as Walmart’s business invitee (one who enters the owner’s property primarily for the owner’s benefit), the store owed him a duty to warn or guard against hazardous conditions such as the rattlesnake. In many cases, a property owner’s duty to protect invitees applies only where the owner knows or reasonably should know of the hazardous condition. The owner’s liability therefore often hinges on where the hazard is located, how long it has been present, whether it has occurred in the past, and similar considerations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Lynch may be contacted at jlynch@ac-lawyers.com

---

Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

January 24, 2018 — Tony Carucci – Real Estate Litigation Blog
Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, a court may permit a party to withdraw an admission made in response to a request for admission upon noticed motion. The court may only do so, however, “if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(b). The court may also “impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to . . . (2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(c). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---