SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

July 22, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

On July 13, 2011, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the US District Court issued a rule in the case of Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am. v. Univ. Facilities, Inc. (E.D. La., 2011). In this case, Stanley Smith Drywall was contracted by Capstone Building Corporation to “perform undisclosed work at the facility believed to involve the installation of drywall.” The project involved the design and construction of student residences for the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. In May, 2009, University Facilities, Inc. (UFI) sued Capstone Development Corporation and Capstone On-Campus Management.



State Farm insured Stanley Smith Drywall and they sought a declaration that they have no duty: “(1) to insure Stanley Smith or CBC, or (2) to defend or indemnify any party against UFI's claims in the pending arbitration.” State Farm contends “(1) there is no "occurrence" to trigger coverage under the policy; (2) only breach of contract claims are asserted; (3) there is no property damage alleged; and (4) various coverage limitations and exclusions apply to prevent coverage.’



The court concluded that “whether State Farm has a duty to defend in the arbitration must be determined by considering the claims asserted in the arbitration.” However, the arbitration claims were not made part of the record. There, “, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law State Farm's duty to defend on the present record.” The same was true of State Farm’s duty to indemnify. “Stanley Smith and CBC assert that State Farm's motion for summary judgment was filed before any discovery was conducted in the arbitration proceeding or in this case. The Court finds that State Farm has failed to develop the record sufficiently to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to its duty to indemnify Stanley Smith or CBC in the arbitration.’



The court denied State Farm’s motion for a summary judgment on its duty to defend and indemnify.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

March 14, 2018 — Michael Levine and Geoffrey Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Last month, we reported on the ongoing insurance coverage dispute between commercial landlord KVP Properties, Inc. and its property insurer, Westfield Insurance Company. The dispute arises from an October 2015 DEA raid on KVG-owned rental units in Novi, Michigan, which uncovered damage to the units related to the tenants’ marijuana growing operations. The arguments raised by KVG on appeal highlight a number of important marijuana-related coverage issues, which Westfield has now addressed in opposition. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Levine, Hunton & Williams LLP and Geoffrey Fehling, Hunton & Williams LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@hunton.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

August 11, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Mosser Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 09-4449 (6th Cir. July 14, 2011)(unpublished), claimant project owner Port Clinton contracted with insured general contractor Mosser for the construction of a building.  Following completion, Port Clinton sued Mosser for breach of contract seeking damages because of physical injury to the project occurring after completion resulting from defective backfill material that settled improperly.

Mosser’s CGL insurer Travelers denied a defense and Mosser filed suit against Travelers seeking a declaratory judgment. Mosser and Travelers filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the supplier of the backfill material?Gerken?qualified as a subcontractor for purposes of the subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion—exclusion l.—for property damage to or arising out of Mosser’s completed work.   Mosser had purchased the backfill material from Gerken pursuant to a purchase order specifying that Gerken was to supply Mosser with an industry standard grade of backfill for use in the Port Clinton project.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

November 07, 2012 — David McLain, Colorado Construction Litigation
The following is an update on our December 20, 2010 article regarding United States Fire Insurance Company v. Pinkard Construction Company, Civil Action No. 09-CV-01854-MSK-MJW, and its underlying dispute, Legacy Apartments v. Pinkard Construction Company, Case No. 2003 CV 703, Boulder County Dist. Ct. That article can be found here. The present action, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. The North River Insurance Co., et al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-02936-MSK-CBS, encompasses the coverage battle that ensued between Pinkard’s insurers, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) and United States Fire Insurance Company (“USFI”), following the settlement of Legacy’s construction defect claims against Pinkard. A short history of the underlying facts is as follows: In 1995, Pinkard constructed the Legacy Apartments housing complex in Longmont, Colorado. Following construction, Legacy notified Pinkard of water leaks associated with various elements of construction. Legacy ultimately filed suit against Pinkard in 2003, and would go on to clarify and amend its defect claims in 2004, 2006, and again in 2008. Following Pinkard’s notification of Legacy’s claims, USFI provided a defense to Pinkard, but Travelers refused to do so, on the purported basis that Legacy’s allegations did not implicate property damage under the terms of Travelers’ policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Irvine Partner Cinnamon J. Carr and Associate Brittney H. Aquino Prevail on Summary Judgment

June 17, 2024 — Linda Carter - Kahana Feld
Congratulations to Irvine Partner Cinnamon J. Carr and Associate Brittney H. Aquino for Prevailing on a Motion for Summary Judgment! Irvine Partner Cinnamon J. Carr and Associate Brittney H. Aquino prevail on summary judgment in a slip and fall case venued in Riverside County! Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against Kahana Feld’s client, a grocery store with over 50 stores throughout Southern California. Prior to Plaintiff’s fall, security cameras captured footage of a third-party customer picking up a case of water bottles near the entrance of the store. The customer tilted the case and water streamed to the floor. The customer then returned the leaky case to the pallet, picked up another case of water, and walked away. Approximately a minute and 10 seconds later, Plaintiff walked through the area, slipping on the spilled water. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

---

Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

September 25, 2018 — Franz Wild - Bloomberg
Four men and a woman convicted of conning people to invest in a fraudulent luxury villa construction scheme on a potato field in the Portuguese island of Madeira were sentenced to as long as 5 1/2 years in a U.K. jail. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Franz Wild, Bloomberg

---

U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

June 11, 2014 — Earl Forte – White and Williams LLP
On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 12-1200, in which the court confirmed that the power of the nation’s bankruptcy courts to hear and decide cases involving state-created private rights in which the bankruptcy proof of claim process has not been directly invoked, is severely limited by Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The decision in Executive Benefits, while providing some clarity to practitioners and the public following the Court’s June 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), nevertheless will make a substantial portion of bankruptcy litigation matters more cumbersome and potentially more expensive to guide through the bankruptcy system. Clients and practitioners are best advised to hire knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the more complex procedural waters created by this decision. Although the Court in Executive Benefits did resolve a pending procedural question that had dogged practitioners since Stern was decided in 2011, the Court’s decision in Executive Benefits now makes it abundantly clear that many disputes that were previously heard and decided in the nation’s bankruptcy courts can no longer be decided there and must be submitted to the district courts for full de novo review and entry of a final judgment or order. It is difficult to see how this decision will not make bankruptcy litigation more cumbersome and expensive by adding an additional layer of judicial involvement to many matters, notably to fraudulent transfer and other avoidance “claw back” actions that historically have been decided in the bankruptcy courts and used famously in Madoff and other cases as an efficient device for creating value for creditors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Earl Forte, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Forte may be contacted at fortee@whiteandwilliams.com

---

California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

February 22, 2018 — Brenda Radmacher – Construction Law Blog

The California Supreme Court recently issued its decision on a critical issue in the residential construction industry – the claims for construction defects that a California homeowner can bring against a builder or seller of new residential properties in California.

Holding

In McMillin Albany v. The Superior Court of Kern County, the Court held that California’s Right to Repair Act (California Civil Code, sections 895, et seq.) (the “Act”) is the exclusive remedy for homeowners claiming defective construction of new residences in California.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com

---