SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

A Matter Judged: Subrogating Insurers Should Beware of Prior Suits Involving the Insured

March 25, 2024 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Lallygone LLC, No. A-2607-22, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 120, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (Appellate Division) considered whether New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (the carrier) could bring a subrogation action after its insured, Efmorfopo Panagiotou (the insured), litigated and tried claims related to the same underlying incident with the same defendant, Lallygone LLC (the defendant). The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s finding that the prior lawsuit extinguished the carrier’s claims. In Lallygone LLC, the insured hired the defendant to renovate a detached garage on his property. In March 2022, while the defendant’s employees were removing existing concrete slabs, the garage collapsed. After the incident, the insured stopped paying the defendant. In addition, the insured filed a claim with the carrier, which ultimately paid the insured over $180,000 for the damage under its property policy. The carrier sent a subrogation notice letter to the defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Home Construction Slows in Las Vegas

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Although home builders in the Las Vegas area are doing better than they were in 2012, growth is still slow and October saw a decline in the sale of new homes. However, as with other areas, the average home price actually increased over prior months, despite the cooling off the actual number of sales. Taken as a whole though, 2013 looks a lot better than 2012, with 44% more homes sold this year. Dennis Smith, the president of Home Builders Research said that 2013 “will be remembered as ‘the year of recovery,’” but added that “there is still a long path ahead for everyone to feel a sense of comfort.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Seattle Developer Defaults on Renovated Office Buildings

December 23, 2024 — Anna Edgerton - Bloomberg
A major developer in downtown Seattle defaulted on a loan backed by two of its most prized office properties, including one that formerly housed a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Firms tied to Martin Selig Real Estate are in default on a more than $200 million loan, according to letters from lender Acore Capital dated Nov. 15 that were filed in Washington’s King County. The buildings would change ownership 30 days after that notice if no other action is taken, according to the letters. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna Edgerton, Bloomberg

---

Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

September 22, 2016 — Lindsay K. Taft – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
In Washington, RCW 19.122 (the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act or “Call Before You Dig” statute) provides for the protection of underground utilities. The statute was recently updated in 2013 and provides that homeowners and contractors must call “811” to schedule a “utility locate” prior to commencing any excavation. Failure to do so can result in steep penalties, as well as a mandatory fee award for the prevailing party. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

---

Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

March 17, 2011 — Shaun McParland Baldwin

The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently addressed the “Montrose” language added to the CGL ISO form in 2001 in the context of a construction defect claim where a fractured storm drain caused significant flooding a year after the drain was damaged. The insuring agreement requires that “bodily injury” or “property damage” be caused by an “occurrence” and that the “bodily injury” or “property damage” occur during the policy period. The Montrose language adds that the insurance applies only if, prior to the policy period, no insured knew that the “bodily injury” or “property damage” had occurred in whole or in part. Significantly, it also states that any “bodily injury“ or “property damage” which occurs during the policy period and was not, prior to the policy period known to have occurred, includes a continuation, change or resumption of that “bodily injury” or “property damage” after the end of the policy period.



In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., No. 29D04-0706-PL-1112 (Ct. App. IN March 15, 2011), http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03151109ehf.pdf, Sullivan was the General Contractor for a school construction project. Its subcontractor, McCurdy, installed the storm drain pipes. One of the storm pipes was fractured in 2005 while McCurdy was doing its installation work. More than a year later, the school experienced significant water damage due to flooding. It was later discovered that the flooding was due to the fractured storm drain. Sullivan’s insurer paid $146,403 for the water damage. That insurer brought a subrogation claim against McCurdy and its two insurers: West Bend and Grange. West Bend had issued CGL coverage to McCurdy while the construction was ongoing , including the date in which the storm pipe was fractured. Grange issued CGL coverage to McCurdy at the time of the flooding. Those two carriers jointly settled the subrogation claim and then litigated which insurer actually owed coverage for the loss. Significantly, the loss that was paid included only damages from the flooding, not any damages for the cost of repairing the pipe.



Read the full story...



Reprinted courtesy of Shaun McParland Baldwin of Tressler LLP. Ms Baldwin can be contacted at sbaldwin@tresslerllp.com

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

---

Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

April 25, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.



The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”



Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”



After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”



The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“



In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”



Read the trial court’s decision…

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

---

New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims

January 02, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews Kurth
In a prior post, we discussed a New York trial-court decision that found an insurance policy issued in 1966, to insure the construction of the World Trade Center, continues to cover modern-day asbestos claims, with each claim constituting an individual occurrence. Last week, in American Home Assurance Co. v. The Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., 7628-7628A (1st Dep’t Nov. 15, 2018), an intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, agreeing that coverage is triggered for claims tied to alleged asbestos exposure at the WTC site in the 1960s and ’70s. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hawaii Federal District Court Again Rejects Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

January 13, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the District of Hawaii continued its longstanding pattern of finding no coverage for claims based upon construction defects. Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haw. Nut & Bolt, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174243 (D. Haw. Dec. 16, 2016). Safeway filed a complaint against Hawaii Nut & Bolt (HNB). The complaint involved issues pertaining to the construction of the roof deck at a Safeway store. HNB was a subcontractor hired to supply a coating system on the roof of the store to make it waterproof. The product was manufactured by VersaFlex. After the store opened, there were water leaks from the roof. This disrupted business operations and caused damage to Safeway's business and reputation. HNB tendered the claims to its CGL carrier, Fireman's Fund Insurance Corporation (FFIC). FFIC defended the underlying lawsuit for six years under a reservation of rights. 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

---