Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

LA Wildfires Push California Insurance Market to Its Limit

January 14, 2025 — Leslie Kaufman, Lauren Rosenthal, Michelle Ma & Alexandre Rajbhandari - Bloomberg
If you live in California, you’re always bracing for the Big One. This week it arrived in the form of uncontrollable flames. Liability experts equipped with climate models had been uneasily eyeing such a scenario, realizing in recent years that wildfire now had similar system-crashing potential as a major earthquake to upend lives and destabilize California’s $10 trillion residential property market. A group convened to examine worst-case scenarios determined that three specific areas in the state were particularly vulnerable and capable of causing far-reaching fallout. One was Pacific Palisades, the Los Angeles neighborhood reduced to ashes this week by one of at least five fires burning across the city. Reprinted courtesy of Leslie Kaufman, Bloomberg, Lauren Rosenthal, Bloomberg, Michelle Ma, Bloomberg and Alexandre Rajbhandari, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

BWBO Celebrating Attorney Award and Two New Partners

July 14, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Congratulations is due to Nicole Whyte of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP (BWBO) for being recognized as one of America’s Top 100 Attorneys by America’s Top 100, which identifies the top 100 attorneys in each state. In an email release, the firm stated, “We are pleased to celebrate this lifetime achievement and it is an honor to have Ms. Whyte listed alongside her esteemed peers.” Furthermore, BWBO announced that two of their attorneys have been promoted to partner: Alex Giannetto and Benjamin Price. “Mr. Giannetto believes that hard work, dedication, caring about clients and work product, and surrounding himself with good people, has helped him become successful in his profession,” as stated in an email release. “To be successful you have to surround yourself with successful people,” Mr. Price stated. “A combination of humility, confidence, and hard work is also important.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy

July 01, 2019 — Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
What do you do when your house falls out from underneath you? Over the last few years, homeowners in northeastern Connecticut have been suing their insurers for denying coverage for claims based on deteriorating foundations in their homes. The lawsuits, which have come to be known as the “crumbling concrete cases,” stem from the use of faulty concrete to pour foundations of approximately 35,000 homes built during the 1980s and 1990s. In order to save their homes, thousands of homeowners have been left with no other choice but to lift their homes off the crumbling foundations, tear out the defective concrete and replace it. The process typically costs between $150,000 to $350,000 per home, and homeowner’s insurers are refusing to cover the costs. As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Connecticut homeowners in both state and federal court. Of those cases, three related lawsuits against Allstate Insurance Company were the first to make it to the federal appellate level.1 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was tasked with deciding one common issue: whether the “collapse” provision in the Allstate homeowner’s policy affords coverage for gradually deteriorating basement walls that remain standing. The Allstate policies at issue were “all-risk” policies, meaning they covered “sudden and accidental direct physical losses” to residential properties. While “collapse” losses were generally excluded, the policies did provide coverage for a limited class of “sudden and accidental” collapses, including those caused by “hidden decay,” and/or “defective methods or materials used in construction, repair or renovations.” Covered collapses did not include instances of “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com

Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

February 25, 2014 — Tred Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Responding to four certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, the Hawaii Supreme Court addressed various issues raised by competing "other insurance" provisions in two CGL policies. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 Haw. LEXIS 59 (Haw. Feb. 13, 2014). Coverage for a development on Maui was at issue. The developer, VP & PK (ML) LLC, was insured by Lexington. The other insurance provision in Lexington's policy provided it was excess over "any other primary insurance available to you covering liability for damages arising out of the premises . . . for which you have been added as an additional insured." Kila Kila Construction was one of VP & PK's subcontractors. Kika Kila was not an additional insured under Lexington's policy. Kila Kila had its own CGL policy with Nautilus. The Nautilus other insurance clause stated the insurance was excess over "any other primary insurance available to you covering liability arising out of the premises or operations for which you ahve been added as an additional insured." An endorsement added VP & PK as an additional insured, but only for liability arising out of Kila Kila's negligence. 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

Protecting Expert Opinions: Lessons Regarding Attorney-Client Privilege and Expert Retention in Construction Litigation

August 19, 2024 — David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
The Hill Hotel Owner LLC v. Hanover Insurance Company case has garnered attention due to its implications on the scope of attorney-client privilege in construction litigation. This blog post delves into the project’s background, the ensuing litigation, and the intricate work undertaken by attorneys and experts, highlighting the potential pitfalls associated with assumptions about privilege protections. Background of the Project Hill Hotel Owner LLC initiated a construction project in Boulder, Colorado, which included building a basement-level parking garage with an 18” thick concrete slab floor. The project utilized “void form,” a cardboard underlayment intended to create a gap between the foundation and the underlying soil. Unfortunately, the void form became wet and collapsed under the weight of the fresh concrete, causing considerable damage, and necessitating millions of dollars in remediation costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement

September 13, 2021 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. XL Ins. Am., Inc., 20-CV-4614 (LJL), 2021 WL 3617218 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York—in deciding a motion for consideration—had occasion to review the 2013 ISO changes to the additional insured endorsement, and held that coverage under a policy providing additional insured coverage was limited to the $1,000,000 required by contract, and not the $2,500,000 limit to the policy. In Zurich, Zurich and its named insured D.A. Collins sought the full limits of the primary policy issued by XL to the D.A. Collins’ subcontractor, HBI, which are $2,5000 per occurrence and in the aggregate, for an underlying personal injury lawsuit. XL also issued an excess policy in the amount of $5,000,000 to HBI. The contract between D.A. Collins and HBI required HBI to obtain commercial liability coverage “in an amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. It further provides that the “required limits for the umbrella excess coverage shall be sufficient to provide a total of $5,000,000 per occurrence/aggregate.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

July 09, 2014 — Stephen A. Sunseri - Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Today, the California Supreme Court, in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Jul. 3, 2014, S208173) __Cal.4th__ [2014 WL 2988058], held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners of residential buildings, particularly if they act as principal architects on a project, and are not subordinate to any other design professional. Until now, design professionals were rarely held liable, if at all, for third-party claims for design deficiencies. In Beacon, architectural and engineering firms provided sole design services for The Beacon residential condominium project, a 595 unit project located in San Francisco. The condominiums were initially leased after construction, but were eventually sold to individual owners. The design firms claimed their role was limited to only providing design recommendations to the project's owner, who ultimately controlled and directed which design elements to construct. Not long after completion of the project, the homeowners' association sued the design firms (among others) for construction defects and damages related to alleged water infiltration, inadequate fire separations, structural cracks, and other purported safety hazards. The claims included allegations under SB 800 (the "Right to Repair Act," Civil Code §895, et seq.) and common law negligence theories. The design firms demurred to the complaint, which the trial court sustained. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the design firms owed a duty of care to third parties. The Supreme Court affirmed. Historically, liability for deficient goods and services hinged on whether there is a contractual relationship between a buyer and seller. However, the Supreme Court recognized that in certain circumstances a contractual relationship is not required. In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on fifty year old precedent, Biankanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647. In Biankanja, the California Supreme Court outlined several factors to determine whether a duty of care is owed to non-contracting third parties. Although Biankanja analyzes many factors, emphasis was placed placed on whether a purported harm was foreseeable by a defendant's conduct and how close of a connection there is between that conduct and an injury. Here, the Court recognized that even though the design firms did not actually build the project, they did conduct weekly inspections, monitored contractor compliance, altered design elements when issues arose, and advised the owners of any nonconforming work. In applying the Biankanja factors to these circumstances, the Supreme Court determined the homeowners were intended beneficiaries of the design work and the design firms' primary role in the project bore a close connection to the alleged injuries. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient and, if proven, establishes the defendants owed a duty of care to the homeowners' association. Interestingly, the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether SB 800 was intended to exclusively capture design defects in its scope, even though the Court indicated it may. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ruling is significant. The case will affect how design professionals allocate risk on future residential projects, perhaps by raising design prices or insuring around the liability exposure. The likely outcome, however, is that design professionals are now targets in construction defect lawsuits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Mr. Sunseri may be contacted at ssunseri@gdandb.com

Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

October 11, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
We have often discussed payment and performance bonds here at Construction Law Musings, most often in the context of payment bond claims relating to federal and state-owned. construction projects. A late 2020 case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court examined what happens after such a claim, in this case, based upon a developer’s subdivision bonds, is made and negotiations commence between the surety and the claimant. Specifically, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ransgate Corp., et. al. looked at claims for indemnity by a surety and the principal/indemnitors in the event that the Surety settled such a claim. In the Ramsgate case, Surety provided two separate subdivision subcontract bonds to Ramsgate. Pursuant to those bonds and the indemnity clause of its indemnity agreement, the Surety sought reimbursement of its $80,000.00 settlement payment to the local building authority that it paid to resolve what was originally a claim for over $420,000.00 by the City. The project was started in 2002 and after many years of failures to complete (according to the City of Suffolk), the City made its claim for expenses in 2017. Ramsgate claimed that it completed the subdivisions in 2003. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES