SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Federal Court Asks South Dakota Supreme Court to Decide Whether Injunction Costs Are “Damages,” Adopts Restatement’s Position on Providing “Inadequate” Defense

August 13, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
Do costs associated with complying with an injunction constitute covered “damages?” The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota recently certified that question to the South Dakota Supreme Court, in Sapienza v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. 3:18-CV-03015-RAL, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84973 (D.S.D. May 17, 2019). If the South Dakota Supreme Court takes on the question, it will become one of the few highest state courts to do so.[1] The Sapienza case is also notable because the court adopted § 12 of the Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance (Restatement) regarding an insurer’s potential liability for providing an “inadequate” defense. In doing so, the Sapienza court joins a growing list of courts to rely upon or cite to the Restatement. The Sapienza case arose out of an underlying dispute between residential neighbors over the size and location of the Sapienzas’ new house they built in a historic district in Sioux Falls, SD. The newly-built house allegedly prevented the neighbors from using their fireplace, blocked natural light the neighbors previously enjoyed, and decreased the value of the neighbors’ house. The neighbors sought a permanent injunction requiring the Sapienzas to modify or relocate the house. The Sapienzas’ homeowners’ insurer provided them with defense counsel, but the insurer instructed the Sapienzas that it would not cover any costs associated with an injunction as such costs did not constitute covered “damages.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Anderson may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
After a period of growth, the construction industry lost 20,000 jobs in November, based on the federal jobs data. Damon Scott of New Mexico Business Weekly suggests that contractors may have laid off employees in anticipation of the “fiscal cliff.” Ken Simpson, the chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders said in a press release that “it is discouraging that construction employment is still struggling after three years of expansion in the overall economy.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Negligent Inspection Claim Against Supervising Design Professional / Consultant

August 07, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Can a negligence argument be created against consulting design professionals or entities that are involved in the inspection of a trade’s work? The recent opinion in Bautech USA, Inc. v. Resolve Equipment, Inc., 2023 WL 4186395 (S.D.Fla. 2023) contains an interesting fact pattern that touches upon this issue. While the case dealt with a motion to dismiss, it contains a number of issues that may be discussed in follow-up postings. Here, a prime contractor was hired by Broward County, Florida to install offshore reef mitigation units. The contractor entered into a subcontract with a concrete fabricator to fabricate the reef mitigation units. The contractor also separately hired consultants to inspect the units. The contractor and its consultants rejected the units even after the fabricator implemented design revisions. The fabricator was then terminated and not paid for contract work plus revisions it implemented to finished units. The fabricator sued the contractor and the contractor’s consultants for non-payment under many (ten) different theories of liability claiming it was damaged to the tune of millions of dollars. 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

---

DC Wins Largest-Ever Civil Penalty in US Housing Discrimination Suit

November 15, 2022 — Kriston Capps - Bloomberg
Three real estate companies operating in Washington, DC, will pay record-breaking penalties in a suit brought by the city for illegally discriminating against tenants who use Section 8 vouchers and other forms of housing assistance. The attorney general for the District of Columbia, Karl Racine, announced on Thursday a settlement for $10 million. While fair housing cases involving lenders have resulted in larger compensation payouts, $10 million is the largest civil penalty ever levied in a housing discrimination case. In 2020, the city sued several entities — DARO Management Services, DARO Realty and New York-based parent company Infinity Real Estate, as well as several executives — over housing practices in the District. DARO Management operates and rents some 1,200 residential units in more than a dozen apartment buildings spread across Wards 1, 2 and 3, which include DC’s more affluent areas. (DARO Realty owns the properties, DARO Management operates them, and Infinity owns both affiliates.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

---

Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

August 04, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

On July 28, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled in Clasen Fruit & Cold Storage v. Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. that more than six years had passed since a contractor had concluded work and so granted a summary dismissal of the suit.



Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. (F&M) was contracted to construct several buildings for Clasen Fruit and Cold Storage. These were completed in March, 1999. The buildings suffered wind damage to the roofs in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2006. In the first two incidents, F&M repaired the roofs with Clasen paying for repairs.



In 2005, Clasen hired Continuous Gutter to make repairs. The final incident was the collapse of the roof of one building. This was attributed to “excessive moisture in the roof’s vapor barriers.” At this point, Clasen demanded that F&M pay for repair and replacement costs. In 2008, Clasen sued F&M for damages for breach of contract and negligent design and construction of the roof.



The decision then covered the meanings, in Washington law, of “termination of services” and “substantial completion.” The panel concluded that construction was “substantially completed in 1997” and “relevant services” by 2001. “But Clasen did not sue until 2008, some seven years after termination of any roof related services.”



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois

June 07, 2021 — Lewis Brisbois
Five Lewis Brisbois partners and two Lewis Brisbois practices were recently ranked by Chambers in its 2021 USA rankings list. Kansas City and Wichita Managing Partner Alan L. Rupe and Phoenix Managing Partner Carl F. Mariano were both ranked Band 1 for “Labor & Employment – Kansas” and “Insurance – Arizona,” respectively, while Minneapolis Partner Tina A. Syring was ranked Band 4 for “Labor & Employment – Minnesota,” and Washington D.C. Managing Partner Jane C. Luxton and Partner Karen C. Bennett were ranked Band 5 for “Environment – District of Columbia.” Significantly, Chambers also ranked Lewis Brisbois’ Kansas Labor & Employment Practice Band 2 and the firm’s Washington D.C. Environmental Practice Band 4. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert

April 03, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida went back to the Frye test/standard, instead of the Daubert test utilized in federal court, to determine the admissibility of expert testimony. The Frye test is more favorable to plaintiffs because it applies when an expert renders an opinion based on new or novel scientific principles. See D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Heron’s Landing Condominium Ass’n of Jacksonville, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D109b (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“The supreme court has described the Frye test as one in which the results of mechanical or scientific testing are not admissible unless the testing has developed or improved to the point where the experts in the field widely share the view that the results are scientifically reliable as accurate. Stated differently, under Frye, the proponent of the evidence has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence with the general acceptance of the underlying scientific principles and methodology. However, as stated, the Frye standard only applies when an expert attempts to render an opinion that is based upon new or novel scientific principles.”). In D.R. Horton, Inc., a condominium association sued the developer and general contractor (same entity) for construction defects that included claims in negligence, violation of building code, and breach of statutory warranties. The developer/general contractor moved in limine / to strike the association’s experts under, at the time, a Daubert analysis, but which became a Frye analysis during the pendency of the appeal. The expert opined as to construction defects and damage and the appropriate repairs – really, no different than any construction defect dispute, from what it appeared. The trial court denied the motion and during trial the experts testified and a sizable damages judgment was entered against the developer/contractor prompting the appeal. One issue on appeal was the admissibility of the expert’s opinion. The appellate court noted that a Frye analysis is not necessary because the experts used a scientifically reliable and peer-reviewed methodology. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

July 30, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that a policy's loss payment provision did not bar a post-loss assignment. One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 2015 Fl. App. LEXIS 7643 (Fla. Ct. App. May 20, 2015). After One Cell performed emergency water removal for the insured, the insured assigned his rights to policy proceeds as payment. One Cell alleged that Security First refused to reimburse the insured adequately for the services provided. One Cell filed suit, and Security First moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion based upon the policy's non-assignment provision. One Cell appealed. One Cell argued post-loss assignments were valid under Florida law even when the policy contained an anti-assignment provision, and the right to payment accrued on the date of the loss. 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

---