Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

May 15, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

April 03, 2019 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Recently a client asked me to review a contract for his Firm. The Owner, who had prepared the draft, had inserted a rather stringent “duty to defend” clause. As I told my client, a duty to defend clause is not a good idea for a couple of reasons. First, if you agree to provide a defense, what that means is that you are footing the bill for the Owner if the Owner is sued by another party. Think about that for a minute. You are paying legal fees for someone else’s legal defense. You may or may not be able to direct the litigation or have a say in who is hired. Can you say open check book? Secondly, and more importantly, the duty to defend is almost never insurable. What that means is that your professional liability carrier will not be footing the bill—your Firm will be doing it. This is not a case of adding the Owner as an additional insured, so do not confuse the two. Agreeing to a duty to defend is an extremely burdensome, and potentially costly, mistake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

October 28, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Plaintiff's expert was excluded for never having seen the property. Wehman v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117445 (D. N.J. Sept. 3, 2015). Plaintiff's home was damaged by Superstorm Sandy on October 29, 2012. He reported his loss to State Farm on Octorber 25, 2013, claiming that some roof shingles had come loose during the storm. No other damage was reported. An investigator for State Farm visited the property. The investigator determined that the damage to the roof was not caused by Sandy, but by age, wear and tear, all of which were excluded causes under the policy. Plaintiff informed the investigator there was no damage to the interior of the home and denied the investigator's request to enter the house to inspect. Plaintiff then sued State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith. Plaintiff designated Timothy Fife of Gulf Coast Estimating Services as his expert in the litigation. Fife's estimate of damages consisted of twelve pages of allegedly required repairs for both the interior and exterior of Plaintiff's property totaling $86,351.01. Fife never visited the property to inspect and never spoke with Plaintiff regarding the condition of the property prior to Sandy or the damage allegedly caused by Sandy. Instead, Fife relied upon an inspection conducted by someone else. 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

Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

September 13, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On August 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett was a regulated wetlands under the then-controlling 1977 EPA rules defining “waters of the United States,” and that the Sacketts dredging and filling of their property was subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or EPA. EPA’s case, as it has been for many years, was based on 2008 EPA and Corps inspection reports and Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test as the controlling opinion in the 2006 Supreme Court case, Rapanos v. United States. The Sacketts’ argument was that the text of the Clean Water Act, as interpreted by Justice Scalia and three other Justices, was controlling, but for several years, the Ninth Circuit has relied on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in these CWA controversies. The court’s opinion expressed considerable sympathy for the Sacketts as they negotiated the thicket of EPA’s regulatory processes, but it could not disregard circuit precedent. A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in a unanimous decision, that EPA’s then extant administrative compliance orders were arbitrary and capricious. (See Sackett v. US, 566 US 120 (2015).) After that decision, the case was remanded to the federal district court, where it lingered for several more years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Gain in Home Building Points to Sustained U.S. Growth

October 22, 2014 — Michelle Jamrisko and Danielle Trubow – Bloomberg
Builders started work on more homes in September and American consumers this month were the most optimistic in seven years, signaling the U.S. economy will ride out a global slowdown. Housing starts climbed 6.3 percent to a 1.02 million annualized rate from a 957,000 pace in August as multifamily and single-family projects advanced, the Commerce Department reported today in Washington. The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary sentiment index for October increased to 86.4, the strongest since July 2007, another report showed. Gains in residential construction will help underpin the economic expansion as the recent drop in mortgage rates lifts home sales and gives builders reason to take on more projects. Other figures showing factory production rebounded last month and claims for jobless benefits dropped last week to the lowest level in 14 years added to evidence the turbulence in global markets has yet to depress the world’s largest economy. Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net; Ms. Trubow may be contacted at dtrubow@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko and Danielle Trubow, Bloomberg

California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

October 02, 2018 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Essex Walnut Owner L.P. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138276 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had occasion to consider the issue of a pollution liability insurer’s obligation to pay for the redesign of a structural support system necessitated by the alleged presence of soil contamination. Aspen’s insured, Essex, owned a parcel of property it was in the process of redeveloping for commercial and residential purposes. The project required excavation activities in order to construct an underground parking lot, and as part of this process, Essex designed a temporary shoring system comprising tied-in retaining walls in order to stabilize the area outside of the excavation. During the excavation work, construction debris was encountered requiring removal. Aspen agreed to pay for a portion of the costs to remove and dispose the debris under the pollution liability policy it issued to Essex. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

September 20, 2021 — Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner, Burks Smith, and Associate, Katie Keller, represented a national property insurer in a breach of contract action brought by a homeowner in the Middle District of Florida for substantial property damage alleged to have been caused by hail and wind. Throughout the course of litigation, the homeowner disclosed his expert, which is the same individual that prepared the homeowner’s estimate of damages and causation report. The expert’s credentials list that he is a general contractor, independent adjuster, and inspector. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller moved under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude testimony and introduction of any evidence prepared by the homeowner’s expert. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that the homeowner’s expert was not qualified to render expert testimony in this case, as he did not have the requisite qualifications to render an expert opinion, the methodology utilized by the expert to form his opinion was not sufficiently reliable, and his anticipated testimony was not helpful in the case, as it is imprecise and unspecific. Therefore, the expert’s opinions did not meet the standards for admission of expert testimony as set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and should not be admitted as expert testimony at trial. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Trial Court's Award of Contractual Fees to Public Adjuster Overturned

June 03, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
A judgment awarding the public adjuster his compensation for work performed under contract was remanded for further proceedings by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. Joslin v Ota Camp-Makibaka Ass'n, 2019 Haw. App. LEXIS 155 (Haw. Ct. App. April 5, 2019). A fire destroyed the homeowners' residence on September 19, 2013. The property was subject to the bylaws of the Association of Apartment Owners of Ota Camp. The Association had a policy with Alterra Excess & Surplus Insurance Company and submitted a claim for all units damaged in the fire. The Association's adjuster came the following day to inspect the site. Separately, Robert Joslin, public adjuster, entered a contract with the homeowners to adjust their claim in exchange for twelve-percent of any insurance proceeds obtained. Over the next several months Joslin pursued insurance proceeds from Alterra on behalf of the homeowners. On December 18, 2013, Joslin filed a complaint with the Insurance Division arguing that Alterra had failed to timely make payments on the claim. On February 10, 2014, Alterra's third party administrator, Engle Martin & Associates, sent a check to Joslin for $231,940 made out to the Association, the homeowners and Joslin. 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