Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.

The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.

Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.

Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.

However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Duty to Defend For Accident Exists, But Not Duty to Indeminfy

March 05, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit found there was a duty to defend the additional insured under the policy, but not a duty to indemnify. Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1775 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). By agreement, Footstar operated the footwear department in hundreds of Kmart stores around the country. Footstar's footwear departments were in designated areas of the Kmart stores. Section 18.1 of the Master Agreement required Footstar to defend and indemnify Kmart from "all damage . . . arising out of Footstar's performance or failure to perform under this Agreement." The same section also required Footstar to obtain additional insurance coverage for Kmart. 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

LA Blazes Bolster Case for Wildfire-Tech Investment, VC Clerico Says

February 03, 2025 — Coco Liu - Bloomberg
The Los Angeles wildfires are an unmissable signal for investors to back startups aimed at mitigating and preventing similar disasters in the future, according to venture capitalist Bill Clerico. Clerico, the founder and managing partner of Convective Capital, says there are “huge incentives” to invest in so-called adaptation technologies that can help avoid some of the financial damages now being experienced by homeowners and businesses across the Los Angeles area. The latest estimates for insured losses from the wildfires are now as high as $40 billion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Coco Liu, Bloomberg

Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

March 22, 2021 — Arezoo Jamshidi, Stevie B. Newton & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (B302344, Mar. 3, 2021), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), addressed an issue of first impression: whether the purported acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“section 998”) offer lacking an acceptance provision gives rise to a valid judgment. The appellate court held that a section 998 offer to compromise (“998 Offer”) without an acceptance provision is invalid and any judgment stemming from it is void. In Mostafavi Law Group, plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation per se, among other claims, which was litigated at-length over several years. Defendants served plaintiffs with a written 998 Offer, offering to settle the action for the sum of $25,000.01. The 998 Offer did not specify the manner in which plaintiffs were to accept the offer. Within the statutory time period for acceptance, plaintiffs’ counsel hand-wrote the following onto the 998 Offer: “Plaintiff Mostafavi Law Group, APC accepts the offer.” That day, plaintiffs also filed a notice of acceptance of the 998 Offer, along with proof thereof, and sent a copy to defendants. The next day, having received the notice of acceptance, defendants advised plaintiffs that they would “draft and send . . . a settlement agreement for . . . signature” before paying the settlement funds. Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Stevie B. Newton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Newton may be contacted at snewton@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

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

Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

March 29, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
In a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case, the Court was tasked with determining whether the City of Atlanta’s compliance with the Georgia Payment Bond Statutes barred a subcontractor from recovery against it after the general contractor failed to pay and the surety became insolvent. Squared Plumbing Co., LLC (J. Squared), was a subcontractor on a project to clean up sewage spills in approximately 100 dwellings for the City of Atlanta. As required by the contract executed with the City, the general contractor, Scott and Sons Holdings, LLC (Scott and Sons), obtained a $200,000 payment bond from its surety, First Seaford Surety, Inc. (First Seaford). J. Squared sought to collect on the payment bond when Scott and Sons failed to pay J. Squared for the work it performed on the project. However, First Seaford became insolvent. J. Squared subsequently filed a claim against Scott and Sons and the City to recover $140,000 for its work on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

March 18, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Appellate Division overturned a verdict for the insurer when the actual policy was never introduced at trial. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. B&F Land Dev. Corp., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 264 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan 16, 2018). The decedent was killed when he fell through a skylight while working on a premises owned by B&F Land Development Corporation. The estate sued B&F for wrongful death. B&F tendered to its carrier, Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual (PLM). PLM issued a reservations of rights. It later denied coverage because the location of the loss was not a location listed on the policy, an exclusion barred coverage for bodily injury arising out of B&F's ongoing operations conducted by it or on its behalf, and the loss was not reported to PLM as soon as practicable. PLM sued B&F and the estate for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. A default judgment was entered against B&F after it failed to answer. Trial proceeded against the estate 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

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

February 01, 2023 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that two Partners from the Chicago, IL office have been selected to the 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers list. In addition, two Partners have been named to the 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers

Brian Bassett – Insurance Coverage
Dana Rice – Insurance Coverage

2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars

Jessica Kull – Civil Litigation: Defense
Jeremy Macklin – Insurance Coverage

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES