Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Thank You to Virginia Super Lawyers

July 13, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Thank you to all of my peers and those at Virginia Super Lawyers for nominating and electing me to the Virginia Super Lawyers Rising Stars for 2011. I am particularly honored because this puts me in a group of only 2.5% of lawyers in Virginia. I am truly honored to be a part of this list. Add this honor to my election to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law and 2010 has been a great year for my new firm! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

January 28, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- A three-year winning streak for sales of previously owned homes in the U.S. ended in 2014 as some investors stepped out of the market and first-time buyers failed to fill the void. Purchases totaled 4.93 million last year, down 3.1 percent from the 5.09 million houses sold in 2013, figures from the National Association of Realtors showed Friday in Washington. The share of American homebuyers making their first purchase dropped in 2014 to its lowest level in almost three decades, according to the Realtors group. At the same time, employment gains, growing consumer confidence, mortgage rates at historically low levels and government efforts to lower purchasing costs probably will help bolster demand in 2015. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

Augmenting BIM Classifications – Interview with Eveliina Vesalainen of Granlund

July 19, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
BuildingSMART Finland is supplementing building information modeling (BIM) guidelines in a national standardization project, as a part of the KIRA-digi program. In her Master’s thesis, Eveliina Vesalainen, of Granlund, has compared European BIM classifications for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) design. Her study is the groundwork for the upcoming Finnish norms. “I’m a 26-year-old, soon to be Master of Science, and I come from Mäntsälä. I live in Helsinki and work at Granlund, a leading Finnish MEP consultancy,” Eveliina explains. She has a bachelor’s degree in environmental engineering, but became interested in MEP by chance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.

First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”

The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”

Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”

The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”

Read the court’s decision…

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

Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

December 22, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Every now and then I come across an opinion that addresses good-to-know legal issues as a corollary of strategic litigation decisions that are questionable and/or creative. An opinion out of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Rock Roofing, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2019 WL 4418918 (D. New Mexico 2019), is such an opinion. In Rock Roofing, an owner hired a contractor to construct apartments. The contractor furnished a payment bond. The contractor, in the performance of its work, hired a roofing subcontractor. A dispute arose under the subcontract and the roofer recorded a construction lien against the project. The contractor, per New Mexico law, obtained a bond to release the roofer’s construction lien from the project (real property). The roofer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the payment bond surety claiming it is entitled to: (1) collect on the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond (?!?) and (2) foreclose its construction lien against the lien release bond furnished per New Mexico law. Count I – Miller Act Payment Bond Claiming the payment bond issued by the contractor is a Miller Act payment bond is a head scratcher. This claim was dismissed with prejudice upon the surety’s motion to dismiss. This was an easy call. 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

Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

September 07, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the insurer had no duty to defend claims against the insured for faulty workmanship. HT Services, LLC v. Western Heritage Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123664 (D. Colo. July 10, 2020). Western Heritage Insurance Company issued three concurrent general liability policies to HT Services, LLC. The policies insured two properties owned by HT in Colorado Springs, its offices and vacant land. HT eventually developed a residential community on the vacant land. In January 2016, the homeowners' association filed suit against HT for negligent design and construction of a retaining wall at the project. HT requested Western to defend and indemnify against the suit. Western denied coverage and HT sued. HT asserted that Western had a duty to defend and asserted claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith. HT moved for partial summary judgment on its claims for declaratory relief, seeking a determination of its rights under the policies. Western moved for summary judgment on all of HT's claims. 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

Business Risk Exclusions Bar Faulty Workmanship Claim

December 21, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The manufacturer of roofing and waterproofing systems was unsuccessful in securing coverage for alleged faulty workmanship due to the "your work" and "your product" exclusions. Siplast, Inc. v. Emplrs Mut. Cas. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176539 (N.D. Texas Sept. 25, 2020). Siplast was sued in New York by the Archdiocese for work done at Cardinal Spellman High School. The Archdiocese purchased a Siplast Roof System for the high school. Vema Enterprises installed the roof system. The roof system was covered by a guarantee. After completion, school officials noticed water damage in the ceiling tiles throughout the school. A consultant hired by the Archdiocese concluded that the leaks were caused by the workmanship and the materials that were compromising the entire roof membrane and system. Siplast determined the guarantee was not applicable. The Archdiocese informed Siplast that it would repair the roof and hold Siplast liable for the costs. Siplast gave notice of the claim to Employers, but coverage was denied. 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

Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

January 17, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's effort to dismiss the insured's collapse case by motion for summary judgment failed. Bitters v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228523 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2021). The insured alleged that there was a "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" to his home caused by collapse due to hidden insect damage to the foundation. The insured came home to find the floor of a bedroom dropped down to the cement slab below. He filed a claim with Nationwide, but coverage was denied. Suit was filed and Nationwide moved for summary judgment. The policy provided coverage for a sudden and accidental collapse caused by hidden insect damage. A building or part of a building was not considered in the state of collapse if it was standing, even if it was in danger of falling low or caving in. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES