SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

May 10, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio
Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) recently won a decision against Larimer County regarding a claim for damage caused to the roofs of several buildings at the County Fairgrounds. Travelers Indemnity Company v. Board of County Commissioners for Larimer County, Slip Copy, 2013 WL 238865, p. 1 (10th Cir. 2013). Larimer County alleged, in district court, that snowstorms and the weight of the snow build-up caused damage to the roof structures. Id. After the district court found for Travelers on a motion for summary judgment, Larimer County appealed the ruling, claiming that Traveler’s was obligated under the insurance policy to pay for repair costs to portions of the roofing structure. Id. The underlying claim for repairs originates with several snowstorms that caused damage to several buildings on the County Fairgrounds. The damage claimed was widespread to the roof structures, evidenced by rolling and buckling purlins (horizontal beams running along the length of the roof, resting upon the principal rafters at right angles and supporting the ordinary rafters). Travelers denied the claim based on its own investigation which concluded the damage was caused by design and construction defects, and therefore excluded from coverage under the insurance policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

---

Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

February 02, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Can a claimant recover attorney’s fees in a Miller Act payment bond dispute even though the Miller Act does not contain a prevailing party attorney’s fee provision? Yes, if the underlying contract that formed the basis of the suit provided for attorney’s fees. What about a prime contractor and surety—can they recover their attorney’s fees if they prevail in a Miller Act payment bond claim and the underlying contract provides a basis for fees? The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S.A. f/u/b/o RMP Capital Corp. v. Turner Construction Co., 2017 WL 244066 (11th Cir. 2017) seemingly just answered this question in the affirmative when it reversed a lower court’s ruling that precluded a prime contractor and surety that prevailed in a Miller Act claim from recovering their attorney’s fees[.] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

#5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper analyzed the above mentioned Belasco case, in which “the Second District Court of Appeal made clear that settlement agreements containing waviers of unknown claims in connection with a construction of a property, absent fraud or misrepresentation, will be upheld.” Glucksman, et al. explained that “the homeowner plaintiff had made a claim against the builder pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 896 (“Right to Repair”) and settled for a cash payment and obtained a Release of all Claims including for all known and unknown claims. The court held that homeowner’s subsequent construction defect claim was barred pursuant to the terms and conditions of the earlier release.” Read the full story... In another article on the subject, Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler of White and Williams LLP concluded, “The Court of Appeal’s holding establishes that, despite the prohibition against the release of unknown claims set forth in section 1524 and the protections provided to homeowners by the Right to Repair Act, California homeowners can, in fact, release or waive claims against homebuilders for future, latent construction defects. To release or waive such claims, the language of any settlement agreement should be unequivocal.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

July 30, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

First Railroad Bridge Between Russia and China Set to Open

August 06, 2019 — Saibal Dasgupta - Engineering News-Record
Work was completed on the first-ever railroad bridge connecting Russia to China in early April, as Russian engineers installed the final steel beam in its section of the structure over the river called the Amur in Russian and the Heilongjiang. China finished its part of the work last October, as the structure successfully spanned the world's 10th longest river, which markets the boundary between the two countries. Officials say the bridge will open for public use after the necessary inspections in July this year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Saibal Dasgupta, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?

October 21, 2019 — Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP - ConsensusDocs
Conflict in a negotiation is to be expected and is arguably healthy for the process. Owners and contractors are constantly engaged in negotiations; whether it be negotiating changes to the work, changes to the schedule, or changes to the contractual terms. But at what point does taking a strong position in a negotiation cross the line and become coercion or bad faith? A recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals touched on this very issue. While this is a government contract case, the issues discussed in this case (namely negotiating a change) are routinely encountered in just about every construction project. This decision is instructive because it adds to a trending line of cases that limit an owner’s and contractor’s negotiation tactics. On August 5, 2019, the board issued an opinion in the appeal of Sand Point Services, LLC vs. NASA, ASBCA Nos. 6189. In Sand Point Services, the contractor was hired by the owner to repair the Wallops Flight Facility’s aircraft parking apron. During its work, the contractor hit a differing site condition, namely unsuitable soils. The contractor sought additional time and money for this differing site condition. The owner ultimately responded with a show cause letter to the contractor claiming, among other breaches, that the contractor was significantly behind schedule. This was generally viewed by all parties as the start of default proceedings against the contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP
Mr. Millan may be contacted at smillan@joneswalker.com

---

Hunton Andrews Kurth Insurance Attorney, Latosha M. Ellis, Honored by Business Insurance Magazine

May 03, 2021 — Andrea DeField & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
We are proud to share that Business Insurance has named Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance coverage associate, Latosha M. Ellis, one of the magazine’s 2021 Break Out Award winners. Business Insurance’s Break Out Awards honor 40 top professionals from around the country each year who are expected to be the next leaders in risk management and the property/casualty insurance field. Business Insurance reviewed hundreds of nominees, all of whom have worked in commercial insurance or related sectors for under 15 years. Out of those hundreds, Latosha was selected as one of the 40 honorees for 2021. Latosha is well-deserving of this honor. She is committed to excellence in the practice of law and in her service to clients, both of which have earned her a sterling reputation in the Virginia and District of Columbia legal communities. In addition to her litigation success and excellent client service skills, Latosha is a leader, both in the firm and in the legal community. Latosha not only serves as a mentor to several young attorneys at our firm, but she is also a board member of the University of Richmond Law School Alumni Board (currently serving on a three-year term) and a planning member of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) professional development committee. She also co-chaired the 2021 ABA Insurance Coverage and Litigation Committee Annual CLE Conference, for which she implemented new diversity and inclusion standards and ensured several program sessions geared towards young lawyers. In addition, Latosha was selected as the firm’s 2019 Pathfinder for the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity, serves on the executive board of the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia, and was inducted into the American Bar Association’s Section of Litigation Young Lawyer Leadership Program. Reprinted courtesy of Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Predicting the Future of Texas’s Grid Is a Texas-Sized Challenge

June 27, 2022 — Nathaniel Bullard - Bloomberg
A little more than a year after a paralyzing winter freeze, the Texas power market just experienced the stress of extreme heat. Last week, power prices in Houston briefly jumped above $5,000 per megawatt-hour as high temperatures coincided with a number of generators being offline for maintenance. Yet a few days earlier, power prices in west Texas had been negative $883 dollars per megawatt-hour, because at the time wind generation was abundant and demand was low. “Dynamic” is one way to describe the price swings within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (Ercot), the grid that provides the majority of the state’s power. “Jarring” or “terrifying” might be other words for it, particularly for those buying power in the spot market. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nathaniel Bullard, Bloomberg

---