Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Alabama Court Determines No Coverage For Insured's Faulty Workmanship

June 28, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
The Alabama Supreme Court found there was no coverage for the insured cabinet maker for claims arising from alleged faulty workmanship. Shane Traylor Cabinetmaker, L.L.C. v. Am. Resources Ins. Co., Inc., 2013 Ala. LEXIS 42 (May 3, 2013). The insured was sued by a homeowner for property damage caused by faulty workmanship. The insurer refused to defend, contending there was no "occurrence." The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

December 10, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no coverage regarding aesthetic uniformity between new materials installed after water damage occurred and the rest of the building. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. The Towers of Quayside No. 4 Condominium Assoc., Case No. 15-CV-20056-King (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2015). The insured's high rise condominium suffered water damage when a valve on the air conditioning unit damaged the drywall, carpeting, baseboards, insulation and wallpaper in the east hallways of the eleventh floor and the floors below. Floors three through twenty-five had a uniform appearance by design with respect to the carpet, wallpaper, and woodwork in the common area hallways. The insured submitted a claim under its property policy with Great American. A payment of $170,291.84 was made for damage to the east hallways of the eleventh floor and the floors below. The insured sought coverage to repair or replace undamaged carpeting, wallpaper, baseboards, and woodwork in (1) the west hallways and elevator landings of the eleventh floor and the floors below and in (2) floors twelve through twenty-five.The insured contended that the loss of aesthetic uniformity devalued the building and constituted a loss to the building. 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

U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

July 09, 2014 — Kelly Gilblom – Bloomberg
Tornadoes, hail and windstorms that pounded the U.S. from the Rocky Mountains to the Tennessee Valley last month will probably cost insurers more than $1 billion, Aon Plc said in a report. Hailstorms and winds greater than 90 miles an hour (145 kilometers) in June caused billions of dollars of economic losses, led by a full week of storms early in the month, the London-based insurance broker said today. More than 300 tornadoes hit the U.S. last month, compared with 125 a year earlier and 111 in June 2012, according to preliminary data from the National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center. May, June and July tend to be the worst months for twisters, it said. Severe weather from June 3 to June 9 this year killed three people and led to more than 100,000 claims, Aon said. Later in the month, “hail and winds gusting to hurricane strength tracked eastward,” the broker said in its report. The storm “shattered windows, punctured roofs and downed trees onto homes, structures and vehicles.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kelly Gilblom, Bloomberg
Ms. Gilblom may be contacted at kgilblom@bloomberg.net

AGC Seeks To Lead Industry in Push for Infrastructure Bill

May 01, 2019 — Jennifer Seward - Engineering News-Record
The ongoing call for better infrastructure funding, along with workforce innovation and an enhanced focus on diversity and inclusivity, is taking center stage at the Associated General Contractors of America. The association’s leaders emphasized that these issues are crucial to the industry’s future as more than 2,800 attendees gathered for AGC’s annual convention in Denver April 1-4. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Seward, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

March 16, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Project Surveillance, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, No. 4:19-CV-03324, 2020 WL 292247 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2020), a Texas federal court held that a professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy precluded Travelers’ duty to defend its insured. The underlying lawsuit was a wrongful death action brought by the family of a worker killed on a construction site. Project Surveillance was present at the construction site “to provide safety supervision or other services.” The underlying lawsuit alleged that Project Surveillance negligently failed to inspect or adequately inspect the project and failed to warn or adequately warn the decedent of a dangerous condition. The underlying lawsuit also alleged that Project Surveillance was negligent in failing to stop work. At the time of the incident, Project Surveillance had commercial general liability insurance through Travelers and professional liability insurance through RLI. RLI agreed to defend Project Surveillance in the underlying lawsuit. Travelers, however, denied owing a duty to defend or indemnify based on an exclusion for “bodily injury” arising out of the rendering or failure to render any “professional service.” The Traveler policy defined the term “professional services” to mean any service requiring specialized skill or training, including “failure to prepare [. . .] any warning,” “supervision,” “inspection,” “control,” “surveying activity or service,” “job site safety,” “construction administration,” and “monitoring [. . .] necessary to perform and of [those] services.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

June 05, 2017 — Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger, & David A. Napper - CGDRB News & Publications
The matter has been fully briefed since last year and the construction industry anxiously awaits the California Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132. Numerous amicus briefs have also been filed including one by the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, with the immediate past president of the organization, CGDRB's Glenn T. Barger, Esq., listed as the attorney of record. The Supreme Court will consider the issue of whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, thereby resolving the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District's holding in McMillin Albany, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District's holding in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, on this particular issue. Oral argument is still pending and CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the progress of this case. Stay tuned. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger and David A. Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

City Potentially Liable for Cost Overrun on Not-to-Exceed Public Works Contract

June 29, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
On a public works construction project, a contractor incurred additional costs and asserted a claim against the city. The city denied the claim because the contract had a not-to-exceed price, and the city council and mayor did not approve contract modifications to exceed that amount. City ordinances require approval for contract modifications and change orders exceeding ten percent of the original not-to-exceed amount. But the contractor argued that the ordinance did not apply because the excess costs did not result from a contract modification or change order. In addition, the contractor argued that, in refusing to approve an increase in the not-to-exceed amount, the city breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court concluded that these questions were factual issues for the jury to decide. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

April 27, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
On January 27th, Senator Robert Rodriguez introduced SB 20-138 into the Colorado Legislature. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and has not yet been scheduled for its first hearing in that committee. In short, Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would:

Extend Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
Require tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
Permit statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.

Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims are codified at C.R.S. § 13-80-104. In 1986, the Colorado Legislature set the statute of repose period at 6+2 years. For the last 34 years, Colorado’s statute of repose for owners’ claims against construction professionals has been substantially the same, to wit:

(1) (a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.

(2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES