SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

January 07, 2015 — Jerrold P. Anders and Michael W. Jervis - White and Williams LLP
In Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the gist of the action doctrine that distinguishes between tort and contract claims. In doing this, the Court also ruled that a Certificate of Merit in a professional liability claim is necessary only if the plaintiff is in a direct client relationship with the licensed professional. This clarification of the Certificate of Merit requirement may limit the ability of architects and engineers to obtain an early dismissal in lawsuits. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co. involves a common scenario. The Brunos filed a claim with their homeowners’ insurer after discovering mold in their home during remodeling. The policy included an endorsement providing coverage for mold. As part of the claim adjustment, Erie hired an engineer to inspect the mold and to provide an opinion on its severity to determine the extent of remediation required. The engineer hired by Erie reported to Mr. Bruno that the mold was harmless, that concern over health problems due to mold was merely a “media frenzy,” and that the Brunos should continue with their renovations. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold P. Anders, White and Williams LLP and Michael W. Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Labor Laws and Action Over Exclusions

February 01, 2021 — Theresa A. Guertin & Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
One of the most important methods for shifting risk in the construction context is insurance coverage. Upstream parties such as owner/developers and general contractors typically require that their downstream subcontractors who perform work on their properties or projects bring specific insurance to the table. These insurance requirements have a twofold purpose: protect the upstream parties, through additional insured coverage, from liabilities caused by the subcontractor; and protect the downstream parties by ensuring that they have adequate insurance for their own potential liabilities. In New York, subcontractor insurance coverage can have some surprising terms which frustrate risk transfer. Numerous policies contain “Action Over” exclusions, which bar coverage for one of the most significant exposures faced by owner-developers and general contractors: bodily injury lawsuits brought by subcontractor employees. It is critical that upstream parties understand the unique impact of New York’s labor laws on the insurance market and be prepared to identify and request removal of Action Over exclusions on subcontractor insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at TGuertin@sdvlaw.com Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at AMcWilliams@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Hidden Price of Outdated Damage Prevention Laws: Part I

November 21, 2018 — Brigham A. McCown - Construction Executive
Excavators know that dialing 811 triggers a process that requires all utilities operating in the service area to find and mark the location of their underground facilities so that they are not damaged during the excavation process. In addition, marking the location of the utilities is intended to keep the public safe, for instance by preventing an excavator from striking a gas line. But excavators also know that in most states, the laws and regulations that govern these procedures are weak and that enforcement is even weaker. It’s an unfortunate fact that excavators and the public – typically the least culpable parties – suffer the consequences of weak damage prevention laws and lack of strong enforcement regimes. Reprinted courtesy of Brigham A. McCown, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies

July 20, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On May 26, 2020, a California Court of Appeals (4th District) issued its decision in Mosley et al. v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. The case arose in the context of a marijuana-growing tenant who rerouted a home’s electrical system and caused an electrical fire. The issue was whether the homeowner’s policy covered the loss. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and, in a divided decision, the Court of Appeals reversed in part. The policy excluded losses “resulting from any manufacturing, production or operation, engaged in … the growing of plants.” The parties agreed that the fire resulted from the rewiring of the electrical system, but disagreed on “whether that means the damage” “result[ed] from” “the growing of plants.” The Court held that “resulting from” “broadly links a factual situation with the event creating liability, and connotes only a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship.” In doing so, it equated the terms “results from” and “arising from.” Concluding that a “common sense” approach was to be used, it found a “minimal causal connection” to be present. This expansive standard could be beneficial to policyholders in arguing the causal connection between COVID-19 and ensuing business interruption losses; specifically, that the pandemic, a covered event, is the underlying and proximate cause of the insureds’ physical loss and/or damage and the insured’s resulting business interruption loss, and that intervening events, whether they be orders of civil authority, prevention of ingress/egress or otherwise, would not sever the chain of causation. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

May 10, 2017 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
What law governs a deficiency action if the choice-of-law provisions in the note and deed of trust conflict? The Arizona Court of Appeals answered that very question in ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0071 (Ct. App. April 15, 2017). It turns out, the note controls. The Facts In ZB, ZB, N.A. (ZB), a Utah bank, lent money to the Hoellers to purchase a commercial property in Missouri. The note included a choice-of-law provision stating that Utah law governed the debt. The deed of trust securing the commercial property, however, provided that Missouri law controlled “procedural matters related to the perfection and enforcement of [ZB’s] rights and remedies against the [p]roperty.” In 2012, the Hoellers defaulted, and the bank recovered the property through a trustee’s sale. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

---

A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

April 22, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A termination for convenience is NOT a termination for default. They are NOT the same. They should NOT be treated as the same. I am a huge proponent of termination for convenience provisions because sometimes a party needs to be able to exercise a termination for convenience, but the termination is not one that rises to a basis for default. However, exercising a termination for convenience does not mean you get to go back in time and convert the termination for convenience into a termination for default. It does not work like that. Nor should it. An opinion out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals – Williams Building Company, Inc. v. Department of State, CBCA 7147, 2024 WL 1099788 (CBCA 2024 – demonstrates a fundamental distinction between a termination for convenience and a termination for default, i.e., that you don’t get to conjure up defaults when you exercise a termination for convenience:

Because a termination for convenience essentially turns a fixed-price construction contract into a cost-reimbursement contract, allowing the contractor to recover its incurred performance costs, the resolution of this appeal will involve identifying the total costs that [Contractor] incurred in performing this contract before [Government] terminated it for convenience. Since [Government] terminated the contract for convenience rather than for default, it no longer matters whether, in the past,[Contractor] acted intentionally in overstating the amount of its incurred costs or committed a contract breach. Ultimately, as permitted in response to a termination for convenience, [Contractor] will recover those allowable costs that [Contractor]establishes it incurred in performing the contract.

Williams Building Company, supra.

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

---

Rachel Reynolds Selected as Prime Member of ADTA

April 05, 2021 — Rachel Tallon Reynolds - Lewis Brisbois
Seattle Partner Rachel Tallon Reynolds was recently selected as a prime member of the Association of Defense Trial Attorneys (ADTA), an exclusive designation bestowed upon only one lawyer per one million population for each city, town, or municipality. The ADTA is a select group of diverse and experienced civil defense trial attorneys whose mission is to improve their practices through collegial relationships, educational programs, and business referral opportunities, while maintaining the highest standards of professionalism and ethics. ADTA members possess the highest skill level of civil defense trial attorneys. Moreover, because ADTA invites only one defense trial attorney to be its prime member per one million in population for each city, town, or municipality across the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Canada, France and The United Kingdom of Great Britain, as well as Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, a prime membership represents the high regard in which that defense trial attorney is held by his or her peers in the defense trial bar of their city and state or province. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rachel Tallon Reynolds, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Reynolds may be contacted at Rachel.Reynolds@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Construction Termination Issues Part 4: What to Do When They Want to Fire You, the Architect or Engineer

August 14, 2023 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
What if you are told that your own design services are no longer needed or welcome on a project? Can they do that? What happens then? How do you protect yourself. As you probably realize, while rare, the Owner does have the legal right to fire you “for cause”. See B101 §9.4, as long as the Owner gives you 7 days written notice. In fact, the Owner can terminate your contract for any reason at all (maybe you root for the wrong basketball team?) by terminating you for convenience (i.e., for any reason whatsoever) under B101 §9.5, again with 7 days written notice. As with Contractor terminations, the money you get when fired for convenience is much greater than when you are terminated for cause. If you are fired “for convenience”, you get paid for all services previously rendered as well as termination expenses, including anticipated profit on the value of services not performed. See B101 §9.7. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---