SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

September 30, 2019 — William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy, & Denis Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Congratulations to Haight’s attorneys who were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition Los Angeles, California William G. Baumgaertner for personal injury and product liability litigation for plaintiffs and defendants Michael Leahy for insurance law Denis Moriarty for insurance law Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy and Denis J. Moriarty Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at wbaum@hbblaw.com Mr. Leahy may be contacted at mleahy@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at dmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

November 29, 2021 — Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw - ConsensusDocs
The Miller Act (the “Act”), which requires the prime contractor to furnish a performance bond and a payment bond to the government, protects “all persons supplying labor and materials carrying out the work provided for in the contract.”[1] Despite its broad language, courts have limited the parties who may actually assert a claim under the Act. This article introduces general background of the Act, identifies subcontractors who may qualify for protections under the Act, and suggests ways to preserve the rights as prime contractors. Brief Background of the Miller Act Under the Miller Act, there are two types of bonds the prime contractor furnishes to the government in a federal construction contract of more than $100,000[2] 1. Performance Bond A performance bond protects the United States and guarantees the completion of the project in accordance with the contract’s terms and conditions.[3] This bond must be with a surety that is satisfactory to the officer awarding the contract and in the amount the officer considers adequate for government protection.[4] If a contractor abandons a project or fails to perform, the bond itself will cover the government’s cost of substitute performance. Thus, the performance bond disincentivizes contractors from abandoning projects and provides the government with reassurance that an abandonment will not create delays or additional expenses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw, Fox Rothschild LLP
Ms. McGraw may be contacted at dmcgraw@foxrothschild.com

---

Some Coastal Cities Are Sinking Even Faster Than Seas Are Rising

June 20, 2022 — Ditas B Lopez - Bloomberg
Rising seas have long been a threat to coastal cities. New research suggests that cities—particularly in Asia—are sinking as well, compounding the risks of frequent and severe flooding. In Karachi, land is sinking five times as fast as the sea level is rising, according to the study published this month in Geophysical Research Letters. Manila and Chittagong, Bangladesh’s second-largest city, are sinking at 10 times the rate of the rising waters. In China’s Tianjin, a coastal city about 150 kilometers southeast of Beijing, the ground is giving way at 20 times that speed. In those four cities alone, the phenomenon could affect roughly 59 million residents. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ditas B Lopez, Bloomberg

---

Surviving a Tornado – How to Navigate Insurance Claims in the Wake of the Recent Connecticut Storm

May 24, 2018 — Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Five minutes after I parked my car, a tree fell on it. On Tuesday, May 15th I pulled into my driveway, in my small Connecticut neighborhood, under a grey sky. As soon as I walked in the house, the lights flickered. And then suddenly there was a loud “Crack!” and “Crash!” and the sound of breaking glass. I looked out the window and trees were bent 90 degrees, then snapping, and then flying up instead of falling down. As quickly as it came, it passed. When I stepped outside, my first thought was that my car has seen better days. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Miller may be contacted at gjm@sdvlaw.com

---

Harrisburg Sought Support Before Ruinous Incinerator Retrofit

September 20, 2017 — Jonathan Barnes & Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
When former Harrisburg, Pa., Mayor Stephen Reed (D) and his aides set out to retrofit the city’s aging incinerator in late 2000, the project spun out of control over the coming years, enlarging the debt the city owed on the facility to $300 million and sinking Harrisburg into financial ruin. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Barnes, ENR and Richard Korman, ENR ENR staff may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

December 19, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Fifth Circuit in Evanston Insurance Co. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. recently held that multiple collisions caused by the same insured driver over a span of 10 minutes constitute a single occurrence subject to a $1 million limit in the insured’s primary policy with Mid-Continent. The holding reversed a lower court’s ruling that Mid-Continent is liable for an additional sum the excess insurer, Evanston, paid to resolve all of the claims arising from the collisions. At issue, a fundamental question about causation and coverage under commercial liability insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

October 22, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion dulling the teeth of the “no voluntary payment” clauses found in many contractors’ insurance policies. In the case of Stresscon Corporation v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 2013 WL 4874352 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals found that an insured’s breach of the “no voluntary payment” clause does not always bar the insured from receiving benefits from its insurance company. In July 2007, at a construction project run by Mortenson (the “GC”), a partially erected building collapsed, killing one worker and gravely injuring another. The collapse was caused by a crane hook pulling a concrete component off of its supports. The GC contracted with Stresscon Corporation (“Stresscon”) to build pre-cast concrete components for the project, and in turn Stresscon hired two sub-subcontractors, RMS and Hardrock (the “Crane Team”) to work together to erect those concrete components. Stresscon and the Crane Team had liability insurance, and Stresscon was insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”). The accident led to three separate lawsuits: 1) one brought by the deceased worker; 2) one brought by the injured worker; and 3) one brought by the GC against Stresscon claiming it was entitled to contract damages incurred because the project was delayed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

---

Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered

July 13, 2017 — Bob Henry - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Clearing up any lingering confusion, in Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC v. Woods, 767 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4 (June 22, 2017), the Arizona Court of Appeals confirmed that residential forcible entry and detainer actions in Arizona accrue for statute of limitations purposes when a party entitled to possession makes a formal demand for return of possession not when the party could have made a demand for return of possession. In Carrington, the borrowers (the Woodses) remained in property that they had acquired in 2008 but then lost to foreclosure several years later. The original lender obtained title to the property at a trustee’s sale on February 16, 2010, but did not take any action to remove the Woodses at that time. Title to the property was then transferred through a series of transactions over the next six years. Ultimately, Carrington acquired the title and, in 2016, sent a formal “Notice to Vacate” the premises to the Woodses. After the Woodses failed to timely vacate pursuant to the demand, Carrington initiated an FED action to evict them from the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bob Henry, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com

---