Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice

May 20, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes, when it comes to insurance, you may hear the argument that you breached your insurance policy by failing to provide your insurer with prompt notice as the insurance policy requires. Well, this is not such an absolute issue. With that said, you should absolutely provide your insurer with prompt notice of a claim or loss. No legitimate reason not to. But, if you don’t, it is not an absolute get out of jail free card for your insurer, but it does give them a good argument, which you don’t really want to deal with. In Gulfpoint Construction Co., Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2024 WL 1759228 (11th Cir. 2024), an insured appealed a trial court’s ruling that found it did not provide prompt notice to its property insurer as the policy required. In this case, notice was provided two years after a loss from a hurricane. The insurer denied coverage and, in doing so, relied on the insured’s failure to provide prompt notice. Although the trial court agreed, the appellate court found this was a genuine issue of material fact. 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

Amazon Can be Held Strictly Liable as a Product Seller in New Jersey

August 07, 2022 — Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation Strategist
On June 29, 2022, in N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp. a/s/o Angela Sigismondi v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115826 (Sigismondi), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) is a “seller” under New Jersey’s product liability statute and can thus face strict liability for damages caused by products sold on its platform. Although the analysis is state-specific, Sigismondi may serve as an important decision for allowing product defect claims to proceed against Amazon when so often the third-party vendor that lists the product is unlocatable, insolvent, or not subject to the jurisdiction of United States courts. In recent years, Amazon has been fighting product liability claims across the country. Amazon argues it is not a “seller” under states’ product liability laws but is merely an online marketplace that facilitates the sale of products by third-party vendors. What constitutes a “seller” in a particular state must be evaluated state-by-state, but various courts have accepted Amazon’s argument that it is not a “seller.” These decisions are based on Amazon’s level of control in the product sale and often focus on a finding that Amazon did not convey possession of the product or transfer its title. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

July 19, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Oftentimes an occurrence in a commercial general liability policy is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” It is this occurrence that causes the bodily injury or property damage that may be covered by the policy. An interesting non-construction case determined an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy occurred when the negligent act occurred irrespective of the date of discovery or the date the claim was discovered or asserted. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy No. J046137 v. Pierson, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1288c (Fla. 4thDCA 2021). This is interesting because the appellate court did NOT apply a “trigger theory” to first determine the occurrence’s policy period. The appellate court found it did not need to determine which “trigger theory” applied to determine the occurrence for the injury and relied on a cited case: “trigger theories are generally used in the context of deciding when damage occurred ‘in cases involving progressive damages, such as latent defects, toxic spills, and asbestosis’ because the time between the ‘injury-causing event (such as defective construction, a fuel leak, or exposure to asbestos), the injury itself, and the injury’s discovery or manifestation can be so far apart.” Pierson, supra, citing and quoting Spartan Petroleum Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 805, 808 (4th Cir. 1998). 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

Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurer, Determining it has No Duty to Defend

September 18, 2023 — Traub Lieberman
In a declaratory judgment action brought before the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala won summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Foremost Signature Insurance Co. (“Foremost”), obtaining a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Defendant 170 Little East Neck Road LLC (“Little East”) in an underlying state court personal injury action. In the underlying action, a self-employed financial advisor leasing a suite for her business on the second floor of the property at 170 Little East Neck Road (the “Property”), sued Little East in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, alleging injuries resulting from slipping on ice on a walkway near an exterior door at the Property. Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman and Laura S. Puhala, Traub Lieberman Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Ms. Puhala may be contacted at lpuhala@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

Golden Gate Bridge's $76 Million Suicide Nets Near Approval

June 30, 2014 — Alison Vekshin – Bloomberg
Officials of the agency that runs San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge today approved a $76 million funding plan to erect a suicide barrier along the span, where people plunge to their deaths at a rate of about once a week. The Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District’s 19-member board voted unanimously to approve the funding, which includes $20 million from district reserves. “We must fight mental illness on many fronts and this budget action is a critical component of saving the lives of people who might not see that their brightest days are ahead of them,” Senator Mark Leno, a Democrat from San Francisco, said in a news release yesterday ahead of the meeting. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alison Vekshin, Bloomberg
Ms. Vekshin may be contacted at avekshin@bloomberg.net

Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

April 11, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's suit against his broker for securing a policy with insufficient policy limits was dismissed when filed more than two years after the alleged professional negligence occurred. Pritchard v. Andy Houghton Ins. Agency, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2018). Pritchard requested coverage for replacement of his property in the event of a total loss by fire. He obtained a policy from Houghton. 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

Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

November 13, 2023 — Yaron Shaham - Kahana Feld
In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com

Ambiguity in Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose Finally Cleared up by Superior Court

October 17, 2023 — Mark L. Parisi - White and Williams LLP
In an unpublished opinion from the Pennsylvania Superior Court handed down on August 31, 2023, a long-standing disagreement about the wording of Pennsylvania's Statute of Repose was finally resolved. In Pennsylvania, “a civil action or proceeding brought against any person lawfully performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction or construction of any improvement to real property must be commenced within 12 years after completion of construction of such improvement” to recover most forms of damages that are sought in these kinds of cases. A statute of repose is different than a statute of limitations. A statute of repose is a hard line that does not shift. There is no discovery rule with a statute of repose. Most, if not all, states have statutes of repose for construction. The Pennsylvania statute of repose is among the longest in the country. It can be even longer – up to 14 years – if the injury (including property damage) or wrongful death “shall occur more than 10 and within 12 years after completion of construction.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Parisi may be contacted at parisim@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES