Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Playing Hot Potato: Indemnity Strikes Again

September 17, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Indemnity can be like playing hot potato (for those of you closer to the Minecraft generation, in the game of hot potato, a metaphoric “hot potato” is tossed between (ahem amongst) players while music is playing, and when the music stops, the player holding the hot potato is out. It’s a barrel of monkeys, trust me.). Anyway, like hot potato, with indemnity an owner typically requires its general contractor to indemnify the owner (sometimes the property owner in TI projects and occasionally design professionals) from and against any and all claims arising out of, related to . . . blah, blah, blah . . . the general contractor’s scope of work . A general contractor in turn will usually require indemnity from its subcontractors. And subcontractors will require indemnity from their sub-subcontractors. And down the line it goes with each party pointing their finger at the next party down the proverbial “food chain.” But it doesn’t always happen that way as the next case, American Title Insurance Company v. Spanish Inn, Case No D067137, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District (August 14, 2015), illustrates. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

November 26, 2014 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
On November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond. Background In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

Construction Managers, Are You Exposing Yourselves to Labor Law Liability?

February 22, 2021 — Timothy P. Welch - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
When dealing with construction site accidents, who a party is matters. Under Labor Law sections 200, 240(1) and 241(6) owners, contractors, and their agents have a non-delegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection to workers from risks inherent at work sites, with a specific emphasis placed on elevation-related hazards. Given the near strict liability nature of Labor Law section 240(1), it is critical to identify whether a party is a proper Labor Law defendant from the get-go. While identifying the owner (and usually the contractor) may be relatively straightforward, identifying “their agents” has proven to be a more complex undertaking. It should be noted that the requirements set forth in the Labor Law are non-delegable from the standpoint of the owner or contractor, however, the duties themselves can be assigned to “agents” of an owner or “agents” of a contractor. When such an assignment occurs, the same non-delegable duty held by the owner or contractor is imposed on the agents as well. Moreover, “once an entity becomes an agent under the Labor Law it cannot escape liability to an injured plaintiff by delegating the work to another entity.[1]” An entity that often skirts the line between being an agent and not, is the Construction Manager. Traditionally, the Construction Manager has been found to be outside the purview of the Labor Law when its scope of work is narrowly focused on scheduling and general coordination of the construction process. However, when a Construction Manager’s scope expands, so does its risk that it may, in fact, become a proper Labor Law defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy P. Welch, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
Mr. Welch may be contacted at tpw@hurwitzfine.com

There is No Presumptive Resumption!

January 21, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Louisiana school board filed suit in court in 2018 on a construction project but was rebuffed based upon arguments by the general contractor and surety defendants. Those defendants asserted that the court filings were premature, based upon an arbitration clause in the general contract. The trial court agreed and stayed the litigation, “pending completion of arbitration.” Arbitration was never filed. Interestingly, within the arbitration clause, the following language existed: “For statute of limitations purposes, receipt of written demand for arbitration shall constitute the institution of legal or equitable proceedings based upon the Claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

March 01, 2021 — Jasjeet K. Sahani - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
New York law has historically allowed insurers to recoup defense costs paid on behalf of an insured if there is ultimately no coverage for the underlying action, provided that the insurer reserved its rights to seek reimbursement. On December 30, 2020, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department declined to follow this longstanding principle in American Western Home Insurance Co. v. Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Co.,1 by holding that the insurer was not entitled to recoup defense costs, even where it was determined that the claim was not covered under the insurance policy. In American W. Home Ins. Co., the insureds were named as defendants in an underlying personal injury action. More than four years after the accident, and a $900,000 default judgment against the insureds, they tendered the lawsuit to their commercial general liability insurer, American Western Home Insurance Company (“American”). American denied coverage based on untimely notice, but after the default judgment was subsequently vacated, it agreed to defend the underlying action subject to a reservation of rights. The reservation of rights specifically reserved American’s right to deny coverage if the vacatur of the default judgment against the insureds was reversed. Further, American reserved its right to recover the costs of defending the underlying litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jasjeet K. Sahani, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Sahani may be contacted at JSahani@sdvlaw.com

Run Spot...Run!

November 18, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
"The 'classic' definition of spot zoning is 'the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners.’ Anderson’s American Law of Zoning, 4th Edition, § 5.12 (1995)” (from plannersweb.com). A wireless carrier rebuffed in Jennings, Louisiana, on an application to rezone residential property to site a monopole cell tower sought relief from the federal court for the Western District of Louisiana. The city lacked any wireless tower provisions in its ordinances, and the carrier asserted that existing “commercial property within the appropriate range” was unavailable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

October 23, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court reversed the jury verdict in favor of the homeowners based upon improper instructions purporting to impose a duty to adjust the claim and how to construe a contract. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v Mendoza, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 9497 (Fla. Ct. App. July 5, 2018). The insureds incurred water damage to their home caused by a water heater leak. After a claim was filed, the insurer sent an adjuster to investigate the claim. The insurer denied the claim due to an exclusion for constant or repeated seepage or leakage. At trial, the insurer offered testimony that the leak was a continued and repeated seepage of water over a long period of time, which was excluded under the policy, and not a sudden and accidental discharge of water, which would have been covered. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Deleted Emails Cost Company $3M in Sanctions

January 13, 2017 — Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
Recently, the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware imposed $3 million in punitive sanctions in order to redress harms caused by a company’s bad faith deletion of tens of thousands of emails during the course of litigation. The sanctions were ordered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which was amended effective December 1, 2015 to permit sanctions for the failure to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”). In GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc.,1 the plaintiff, GN Netcom, brought an antitrust suit alleging that the defendant company, Plantronics, interfered with distributors to stop GN Netcom from marketing its product. Upon receipt of GN Netcom’s demand letter, Plantronics issued a litigation hold and began providing training sessions to its employees to ensure compliance. Upon filing of GN Netcom’s suit, Plantronics issued an updated litigation hold and continued training sessions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES