Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

December 20, 2012 — TRED EYERLY, INSURANCE LAW HAWAII
On a certified question from the Federal District Court, the Supreme Court of Kentucky decided that an anti-assignment provision in a policy is unenforceable.Wehr Constructors v. Paducah Div. Assur. Co. of Am., 2012 Ky. LEXIS 183 (Ky. Oct. 25, 2012). Before building an addition to its hospital, Murray Calloway County Hospital purchased a builder's risk policy from Assurance Company of America.The policy provided, "Your rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred without Assurance's written consent . . . ." The Hospital contracted with Wehr Constructors to install concrete subsurfaces and vinyl floors in order to expand the hospital. After installation, a portion of the floors and subsurface work was damaged. The Hospital submitted a claim to Assurance for $75,000, but the claim was denied. Wehr sued the Hospital to recover money for its work on the construction project. In settling the case, the Hospital assigned to Wehr any claim or rights the Hospital had against Assurance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

March 04, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The next case, JMS Air Conditioning and Appliance Service, Inc. v. Santa Monica Community College District, 2nd District Court of Appeal, Case No. B284068 (December 17, 2018), provides an interesting behind-the-scenes look at substitution hearings under the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act

The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (Public Contract Code Section 4100 et seq.), also commonly referred to as the “Listing Law,” requires that prime contractors on state and local public works projects “list” the following subcontractors in their bids:
Subcontractors who are anticipated to perform work with a value in excess of 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid; and Subcontractors, on street, highway and bridge projects, who are anticipated to perform work with a value in excess of the greater of: (a) 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid; or (b) in excess of $10,000.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (02/08/23) – The Build America, Buy America Act, ESG Feasibility, and University Partnerships

February 27, 2023 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
This week’s round-up explores President Joe Biden’s recent State of the Union address and plans for the Build America, Buy America Act, the feasibility of real estate companies achieving their ESG goals, and how developers, lenders, and tenants are partnering with universities to solve real estate challenges.

During his annual State of the Union address, President Joe Biden detailed his Build America, Buy America plans and standard to require all construction materials on federal infrastructure projects to be made in the United States. (Jennifer Goodman & Zachary Phillips, Construction Dive)
Speculation surrounding the economic environment and real estate stability is testing the feasibility and resilience of the environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) framework used by corporations to measure their societal impact. (Anna Staropoli, Commercial Observer)
Adopting Web3 and decentralization in the real estate industry is projected to bring about significant changes and improvements. (David Bitton, Forbes)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

November 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. 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

Client Alert: Expert Testimony in Indemnity Action Not Limited to Opinions Presented in Underlying Matter

February 18, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh Pa. v. Tokio Marine and Nichido Fire Insurance Co. (filed 2/4/2015, B24899 and B247258), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held that the insurer of Costco Wholesale Corporation, in a subsequent indemnity action, could offer expert opinions which were not developed by the third-party plaintiff’s experts in an underlying dispute. Jack Daer filed suit against Costco and Yokohama Tire Corporation, alleging a tire manufactured by Yokohama (and sold by Costco), was defective and caused an accident resulting in Mr. Daer’s injuries. The case proceeded through expert discovery and depositions. On the first day of trial, Costco settled with Daer for $5.5 million, and Yokohama settled for $1.1 million. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com, Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays

March 01, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Montana law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for a subcontractor who was sued by the contractor for breach of the subcontract. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Ed Boland Constr., Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6654 (D. Mont. Jan 18, 2017). Northbank was the general contractor on a project to repair a bridge for the Federal Highway Administration (FHA). Ed Boland Construction, Inc. (EBC) was the subcontractor to perform drilling and pile installation. After beginning its work, EBC ran into difficulties with unforeseen conditions at the work site. The FHA informed Northbank that it had concerns over EBC's ability to complete the work. The FHA alleged that EBC had brought equipment to the work site that differed from the equipment it had represented would be used. 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

My Top 5 Innovations for Greater Efficiency, Sustainability & Quality

October 25, 2020 — Cristina Savian - AEC Business
As a construction professional and British citizen, I genuinely could not have been any prouder and humbled to have opened UK Construction Week Virtual last week. 2020 is the year of disruptions, and we are all looking for this “New Normal”, and while this newfound regularity may have opened new opportunities, as we are now broadcasting to a much wider audience than previous in-person events, and indeed we have to thank technology for that. For us construction professionals, this pandemic has put our industry further under pressure, however, it has also taught us something extremely important. The pandemic has shown the world how vital the construction industry is. The world cannot function without it. This new extraordinary experience has given us the prospect to turn our industry around and transform it into one of the most productive industries in our society. How are we going to do it? I think you can guess what I am about to say, of course by leveraging technology! The panel discussion with leading construction experts across the UK with representatives from Skanska UK, Bryden Wood, and Innovate UK, focused on our top 5 innovations for greater efficiency, sustainability and quality in construction. Here are my top 5. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cristina Savian, AEC Business

Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion

April 26, 2021 — Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and Williams
The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a wide-ranging opinion, Continental Casualty Co. v. Rohr, Inc.,[1] which significantly extended the current restrictive view on when a general liability policy can be considered exhausted so as to trigger overlying excess coverage. The case marks a further step away from Judge Augustus Hand’s almost-century-old ruling in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.,[2] which held that an underlying policy could be “exhausted” by a below-limits settlement as long as the insured was willing to “fill the gap” between the settlement amount and the limits of the policy.[3] In recent years, courts in California and elsewhere have increasingly walked back Zeig’s broad ruling – holding in Qualcomm v. Certain Underwriters,[4] for example, that an insured’s below-limits settlement with primary carriers does not exhaust the limits of primary coverage, or allow the insured to access overlying excess coverage.[5] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES