FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements

March 19, 2024 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
It has long been the law in Washington that contracting parties are free to draft contractual indemnity agreements to allocate risk arising from performance of the work, and Courts will generally enforce those agreements as written. This well-settled principle was recently reaffirmed in King County v. CPM Development Corp., dba ICON Materials[1] a decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, wherein one party to an indemnity agreement attempted to evade its contractual obligations by arguing that certain common law indemnity principles supersede the written terms. This appeal followed a multi-week jury trial from which the client and Ahlers Cressman and Sleight legal team, including Lindsay Watkins, Klien Hilliard, and Christina Granquist, obtained a seven-figure judgment in the client’s favor, including an award of all attorneys’ fees and costs. ICON was the general contractor on a Vashon Island Highway Pavement project for King County. Part of the work on the project involved hauling away and disposing of ground milled asphalt (the “millings”) at King County-approved sites. ICON and D&R Excavating Inc., (“D&R”) executed a subcontract for D&R to perform that work. The subcontract incorporated the contract between ICON and King County, including the obligation to stockpile millings only at approved sites. D&R, however, did not obtain the requisite approvals from King County, and placed the millings at various sites on the Island, including locations that King County explicitly rejected. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

---

Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered

May 20, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Washington Supreme Court found there was coverage for resulting loss despite the original faulty contraction, an exclusion in the policy. Gardens Condominium v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 544 P.3d 499 (Wash. 2024). Farmers issued a policy to Gardens Condominium providing coverage for loss or damage caused by a "Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Cause of Loss" was defined as any risk of direct physical loss. However, a loss was not covered if it was caused by an excluded event. The policy further provided that damage was caused by an excluded event if that event "initiates a sequence of events that results in loss or damage, regardless of the nature of any intermediate or final event in that sequence." The policy excluded coverage for faulty, inadequate, or defective design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, or renovation. The faulty workmanship exclusion also contained a resulting loss exception: "[I]f loss or damage caused by a Covered Cause of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss or damage." Gardens found damage to the building that was caused by faulty design and construction of the building's roof. There was insufficient interior vents and the design of the rafters and joists prevented need ventilation Water vapor condensed on the underside of the roof sheathing, causing damage. Gardens redesigned and repaired the roof assembly to increase ventilation and eliminate condensation by installing sleepers on top of the joists. 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

---

Building the Secondary Market for Reclaimed Building Materials

August 30, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s guest post Friday, Musings welcomes Mark Rabkin of Deconstruction Management, Inc., the first, dedicated, for-profit deconstruction management firm in the country. Based in Northeast Ohio, it through all stages of building removal from property acquisition to deconstruction to recycling and architectural salvage. With 10 years of professional experience as an independent risk advisor focusing on sustainable real estate and development, Mark counsels his clients on effective strategies to reduce hazards and mitigate losses. Mark oversees the marketing and administrative functions of Deconstruction Management, Inc. and is responsible for managing the architectural salvage and the upcycled material reuse and resale side of the business. Mark is a leader in the advocacy of sustainable building strategies both locally and nationally. Mark serves as the volunteer Director of Advocacy for the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the United States Green Building Council. He is also an active contributor on many of the chapter’s strategic implementation teams. Mark is a member of Entrepreneurs for Sustainability, the Council of Smaller Enterprises’ Sustainability Task Force and is an active participant in the Sustainable Cleveland 2019 Initiative. 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

---

Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

August 11, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Alaska Supreme Court found that in the case of Khalsa v. Chose, Ms. Khalsa? failure to cooperate with the courts has obligated them to dismiss her claims against Mr. Chose. Ms. Khalsa bought a home kit from Mandala Custom Homes of Nelson, British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Chose, one of the owners of Mandala was paid by Ms. Khalsa to supervise assembly in Fairbanks. After construction, the roof developed leaks. Ms. Khalsa stated that when climbing a ladder to inspect a skylight leak, she fell and injured herself.



During the subsequent suit, Khalsa proved uncooperative. She skipped a pretrial conference. She attended a hearing that set discovery deadlines but then did not comply with discovery, including her failure to provide medical records documenting her injuries. She eventually said that she would only be able to travel from Arizona to Alaska if the defendants paid for her and her caretaker?s expenses.



When finally deposed, Khalsa terminated the deposition after five minutes, alleging the deposition was “intentionally designed to cause [her] to endure further emotional distress, due to the psychological trauma . . . that was caused or contributed to by the defendants.”



Eventually, the lower court sanctioned her twice. In July, 2008, the court concluded that her failure to provide medical records required dismissal of her injury lawsuit. In October of that year, the court dismissed all remaining claims due to her “pattern of excuses and long delays in providing information for discovery culminating in her refusal to participate in her deposition by the defendants.” Further, Khalsa has argued that the trial court displayed “prejudice and bias toward the pro se plaintiff.”



The Alaska Supreme Court rejected all of Ms. Khalsa?s claims, dismissing her case. They did, however, note that she has thirty days to file an appeal.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

April 10, 2019 — Stella Szantova Giordano - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
As all insurance coverage attorneys know, how courts interpret certain words and phrases in insurance policies is significant since one word can make the difference between a claim being covered or not. On January 28, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in the Ferro v. Weiner1 decision, clarified the jurisprudence on the meaning of “living in the same household” in the context of homeowners policies. Background Facts Ms. Enid Weiner owned a lakeside home which was insured under a homeowners policy through Intact Insurance Company (the “Intact Policy”). The Policy listed only Enid Weiner as the Named Insured, but provided coverage to her relatives “while living in the same household” for liability for unintentional bodily injury arising from an insured’s “personal actions anywhere in the world.” Although the lake house was used as a vacation home when Ms. Weiner’s children were small, it was her primary residence for about ten years before she moved into a nursing home. While she never permanently moved back, her three grown children and their families used the house as a cottage, with Enid occasionally accompanying them. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

---

Seattle’s Newest Residential Developer

March 13, 2023 — Michael J. Yelle - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
On February 14, 2023, Seattle voters passed Initiative 135, creating the “Seattle Social Housing Developer” (“Public Developer” or “PD”) and the initiative was signed into law by Mayor Bruce Harrel on March 1, 2023.[1] With this initiative, voters created Seattle’s newest housing developer. The PD aims to develop, own, and maintain housing in the City of Seattle.[2] In addition, the PD also intends to retrofit acquired properties to increase energy efficiency and bring them into compliance with accessibility standards.[3] Contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers may see this as an opportunity to compete for and build everything from new multi-unit housing to handrail installation projects. This post will explore some of the basics of contracting with a public corporation like the Public Developer and what contractors may want to consider in their business planning. What is the PD? The Public Developer is a political subdivision of the State of Washington, like a port or fire district.[4] The Public Developer is not an agency or department of the City of Seattle. In this way, it is like Seattle Public Schools (SPS) because both SPS and the PD operate within the City of Seattle, but have (or will have) their own staff, procurement rules, and standard contracts distinct from the City’s. Like SPS, the PD can also enter construction and supply contracts, sue, and be sued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight

---

Dispute Over Amount Insured Owes Public Adjuster Resolved

January 14, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court addressed a dispute over fees that the insureds allegedly owed the public adjuster. Public' Adjuster's, LLC v. Mark Gottesdiener & Co., et al., 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2352 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 6. 2024). The insureds owned an apartment building that was substantially damaged by a fire. The building was insured by Quincy Mutual Group. The insureds signed a Public Adjuster Employment Contract with The Public's Adjuster, LLC (Adjuster). The contract authorized Adjuster to negotiate the reimbursable damages with Quincy on the insureds' behalf. Adjuster was to recover 8 1/2% of any amounts received by the insureds. Because of the extent of the fire damage, the work of negotiating a settlement with Quincy proved to be complex. Adjuster meticulously prepared several detained written estimates to by submitted to Quincy. 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

---

Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

March 04, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The policy's one year suit limitation provision was upheld, depriving insureds of benefits under the policy. Oswald v. South Central Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1077 (Dec. 24, 2018). The Oswalds' hog barn burned down on June 21, 2016. Arson was a possible cause. The Oswalds were insured under a combination policy issued by North Star Mutual Insurance Company and South Central Mutual Insurance Company. Central provided coverage for basic perils, broad perils, and limited perils, which included fire losses. The Central policy required property claims to be brought within one year after the loss. By endorsement, the North Star policy required suits be brought within two years after the loss. Presumably, the claims was denied, although the decision does not state this. 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

---