SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Trump Soho May Abandon Condos to Operate Mainly as Hotel

January 28, 2015 — Nadja Brandt – Bloomberg
Lower Manhattan’s Trump Soho, the five-year-old tower that was seized in a foreclosure amid slow sales of its condominiums, may drop its focus on part-time residences and operate most of the property solely as a hotel. The building’s new owner, Los Angeles-based CIM Group, is “stepping away” from marketing the roughly two-thirds of condos that remain unsold, said Gary Schweikert, the building’s managing director. The company is considering converting the unsold units at the tower permanently into hotel rooms, he said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg
Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net

---

Contractor Pleads Guilty to Disadvantaged-Business Fraud

November 17, 2016 — Tom Ichniowski – Engineering News-Record
In the latest development in a federal small disadvantaged-business case, a construction company executive has pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to commit wire fraud. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

---

Federal Lawsuit Accuses MOX Contractors of Fraud

March 04, 2019 — Scott Judy - Engineering News-Record
A subcontractor employee working on the now-canceled MOX project in South Carolina used football tickets, automobile tires, barbecue grills and other gifts to persuade employees of CB&I AREVA MOX Services and other vendors to help approve thousands of fraudulent invoices cumulatively valued at more than $6.4 million, according to a Dept. of Justice lawsuit filed Feb. 14 that names both companies as defendants. The controversial project at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C., originally scheduled for completion in 2016, was canceled in January after cost and schedule estimates increased significantly. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com

---

Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

December 22, 2019 — Robert Howard, Alexander Walker and Matt Olhausen - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Developers in California know that getting approval to build new housing projects can be extremely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. But a new policy is finally coming into full effect which could help developers cut through those barriers. SB 35, enacted in 2017, streamlines the approval process for housing developments in areas with inadequate housing supply, so long as the developments meet certain criteria. We have written elsewhere about the initial impacts of SB 35. SB 35 has successfully allowed some developers to obtain their entitlements quickly and easily through a streamlined process, but some local governments have resisted the use of SB 35. For example, the City of Los Altos denied an application that attempted to obtain streamlining through SB 35, prompting a nonprofit housing organization to sue. In Cupertino, the Planning Commission Chairman advocated in April 2019 for rescinding the SB 35 approval of the redevelopment of the Vallco Mall, which would include over 2,400 units of housing, while some residents have sued to block the development. As a result, it is crucial for developers to understand the details of SB 35 and make sure to meet all of its requirements. Any misstep may allow a recalcitrant local government to deny that a development project qualifies for SB 35 treatment and attempt to block it. In November 2018, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released Guidelines to clarify the criteria for SB 35 and assist cities in determining whether projects qualify for streamlining. Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury attorneys Robert Howard, Alexander Walker and Matt Olhausen Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Walker may be contacted at alexander.walker@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Coverage Under Property Policy With Other Insurance and Loss Payment Provisions

September 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that the other insurance and loss payment provisions relieved the insurer of coverage obligations. Moroney Body Works, Inc. v. Central Ins. Co., 2015 Mass. App. LEXIS 97 (Aug. 6, 2015). A fire destroyed Moroney's custom-built bookmobile that had just been completed. Moroney had two policies: a commercial property policy issued by Central, and a garage insurance policy issued by Pilgrim Insurance Company. Central denied liability for the bookmobile. Pilgrim covered the cost of repairing the bookmobile. It paid $12,449.82 based on the appraiser's estimate of the repair costs. Moroney thought this amount was inadequate given its own estimate of the repair costs. Moroney sued both insurers. Pilgrim settled by paying Moroney an additional amount which, when added to Pilgrim's earlier payment, resulted in Moroney receiving more than the repair cost. Moroney and Central both moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Moroney's motion. 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

---

Overtime! – When the Statute of Limitations Isn’t Game Over For Your Claim

August 07, 2022 — Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Statutes of limitations establish the period of time within which a claimant must bring an action after it accrues. An action can be filing a lawsuit and, in some instances, filing a demand for arbitration. But a multi-year construction project could be longer than the applicable statute of limitations. For example, under Delaware or North Carolina law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract is only three years.1 So a claim for breach of a construction contract that occurred (i.e. accrued) at the beginning of a four-year project under Delaware or North Carolina law may expire before the project is completed. Generally, a claim accrues at the time of the breach (however, it is important to note that this is not always the case and claim accrual could be the subject of an entirely different article). During the course of a multi-year construction project, proposed change orders or claims for additional compensation can sit, unanswered or unpursued, for months. Or, the parties may informally agree as part of regular project communications to put off dealing with a claim head-on until the end of the project. On certain projects, slow-walking a claim is understandable, as a contractor may be hesitant to sue an owner in the middle of a multi-year project and risk upsetting an otherwise good working relationship. But a delay in formally asserting a put-off claim after it accrues could result in the claim falling subject to a statute of limitations defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com

---

Mediating is Eye Opening

September 17, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As anyone that reads this construction law blog on any sort of regular basis knows, I am a big advocate for mediation in most cases (construction or otherwise). I took this truly to heard about four years ago when I decided to go through the training and mentorship to become a certified mediator here in Virginia. This training led to many opportunities to act as a mediator in the General District Courts here in Virginia and has recently given me the great privilege of helping parties that were not court referred resolve their disputes. I’ve discussed this first category of mediations at other times here at Musings, but it is the second category that has opened my eyes lately. The non-court referred mediations are those where the parties actively seek out the assistance of a mediator because they, like me, know that more often than not the control and ability to come to some form of negotiated solution (not to mention short circuiting the litigation process in a way that saves money) is a better way to go than to go through the expensive (though as a construction attorney I acknowledge sometimes necessary) process of litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

September 07, 2020 — Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
The Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.) In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies. Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.” A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot. The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy. The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG. Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status. Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy. In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy. Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered. Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
Ms. Ward may be contacted at dward@bph-law.com

---