Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)

March 28, 2018 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Previously, the A201 required a Contractor to provide notice to the Owner and Architect within 21 days after discovery of unforeseen site conditions. This notification is required prior to the conditions being disturbed, so as to allow the Design Team the ability to evaluate the site and determine the compensability of any such differing conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent

January 28, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed when a liability policy was triggered for ongoing property damage. The Court also declined to apply the multiple trigger theory. Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. John, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3313 (Pa. Dec. 15, 2014). In 2002, Appellants, co-owners of a dairy farm, expanded the size of their dairy herd and milking facility. Appellants hired LPH Plumbing to install a new plumbing system, which would include a wastewater drainage system and a separate freshwater drinking system. LPH Plumbing subcontracted with Stoltzfus Welding to weld metal pipes leading to a holding tank for the new freshwater drinking system. Construction was completed in July 2003. Unknown to Appellants, the plumbing system was defective when dairy operations began. PVC piping for the wastewater was cracked, allowing "gray water" to escape. Further Stoltzfus failed to properly weld an intake pipe leading to a holding tank that formed a part of the freshwater drinking system for the dairy herd. Consequently, Appellants' herd was exposed to contaminated drinking water shortly after dairy operations began in July 2003. 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

Nevada’s Changing Liability Insurance Landscape—State Insurance Regulator Issues Emergency Regulation and Guidance Addressing Controversial “Defense-Within-Limits” Legislation

August 28, 2023 — Geoffrey B. Fehling & Andrew S. Koelz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
We recently posted about Nevada becoming the first state to prohibit defense-within-limits provisions in liability insurance policies. Defense-within-limits provisions—resulting in what is called “eroding” or “wasting” policies—reduce the policy’s applicable limit of insurance by amounts the insurer pays to defend the policyholder against a claim or suit. In response to uncertainty and industry concern about the potential effects the new law may have on the state’s insurance marketplace, Nevada’s Division of Insurance issued an Emergency Regulation and Guidance to Insurers on the new law to minimize disruption to the marketplace. After noting that the new law “has the potential to eliminate or greatly reduce the availability of certain policies of liability insurance and significantly increase their costs, which will affect all types of Nevada businesses, non-profit entities, and state and local governments,” Nevada’s Division of Insurance addressed three issues relating to the new law in the Emergency Regulation:

The meaning of the term “policy of liability insurance,” as used in the new law.
The insurers to which the new law does not apply.
How defense coverage is required to be made available.

Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrew S. Koelz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Koelz may be contacted at akoelz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Factual Issues Prevent Summary Judgment Determination on Coverage for Additional Insured

May 01, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Numerous factual issues prevented the court from deciding at the summary judgment stage whether the additional insured was covered for a personal injury claim that happened on a construction site. Paynes Cranes v. Am States Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40485 (E.D. N.Y. March 26, 2014). Intermetal Fabricators, Inc. hired Paynes to provide a crane and driver for the construction of a store. A construction worker was injured while working with the crane. The injured worker sued several defendants, including Paynes. Intermetal had coverage for the project that included additional insureds. The policy provided, “Any person or organization . . . for whom you [Intermetal] are required by written contract, agreement or permit to provide insurance is an insured, subject to the following additional provisions: a. The contract, agreement or permit must be in effect during the policy period . . . and must have been executed prior to the ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage,’ 'person and advertising injury.’” 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

Law Firm Fails to Survive Insurer's and Agent's Motions to Dismiss

May 08, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Interpreting New Jersey law, the federal district court dismissed without prejudice the law firm's complaint against its insurer and agent. Law Office of Drew J. Bauman v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31844 (D. N. J. Feb. 27, 2023). The law firm had a professional liability policy issued by Hanover. The law firm was sued in the underlying case involving a real estate transaction. The law firm tendered the defense and indemnity of the underlying complaint, but coverage was denied. The law firm sued, contending Hanover breached the policy by refusing to abide by its obligations under the policy. In the alternative, the law firm alleged that its agent, USI Insurance Services, LLC, was liable if the policy did not require Hanover to defend and indemnify in the underlying case. It was further alleged that USI was responsible for procuring coverage for the law firm and knew of its insurance needs. USI was negligent in securing a policy with inadequate coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Insured's Lack of Knowledge of Tenant's Growing Marijuana Means Coverage Afforded for Fire Loss

August 17, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer regarding a claim for fire loss. Mosley v. Pacific Sec. Ins, Co., 2020 Cal. App LEXIS (Cal. Ct. App, May 26, 2020). The Mosleys rented their property to Pedro Lopez. Six months later, the property was damaged by fire. Lopez had tapped a main power line into the attic to power his energy-intensive marijuana growing operation. The illegal power line caused the fire. Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (PSIC) insured the property under an HO-3 Standard Homeowners policy. Paragraph E of the policy provided,

The growing of plants; or
The manufacture, production, operation or processing of chemical, biological, animal or plant materials.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

March 07, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the past year a number of state and federal courts have rendered a number of conflicting decisions that promise to alter or perhaps shift entirely the paradigm, of how builders manage risk.

According to a report today by Dave Lenckus in Property Casualty 360 “Nine state and federal courts and one state legislature over the past year have addressed whether a construction defect a defective product or faulty workmanship is fortuitous and therefore an occurrence under the commercial general liability insurance policy. Four jurisdictions determined it is; three said no; two ruled that a construction defect that causes consequential damage to property other than the work product is an occurrence; and one federal court contributed its conflicting case law that has developed in Oregon since its high court ruled in 2000 that a construction defect is not an occurrence”.

The article strongly suggests that in the absence of a clear consensus over what the recent rulings mean for builders and contractors coverage disputes will intensify and continue to proliferate.

Doing this on a state-by-state basis has caused a lot of confusion among buyers and sellers, said Jeffrey A. Segall, a Tampa-based senior vice president and the Florida Construction Practice leader at Willis of Florida, a unit of Willis Group Holdings.

Read Full Story...

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

Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for Louisiana has reversed the summary judgment of a lower court in the case of Widder v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Judge Roland L. Belsome wrote the opinion for the panel of three judges. Ms. Widder discovered that her home and its content were contaminated by lead. She applied to her insurer, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance, which denied her claim.

In response to Ms. Widder’s suit, LCPIC applied for a summary judgment on the grounds that there was no physical loss and that the policy did not cover defective material, latents defects, and pollution damage.

The appeals court found that the lead contamination of Widder’s home did meet the standards of a direct physical loss, citing a recent Chinese Drywall case. There, it was found, “when a home has been rendered unusable or uninhabitable, physical damage is not necessary.”

The lower court addressed only one of LCPIC’s exclusions, addressing only the exclusion on basis of “faulty, inadequate or defective material.” The appeals court noted that the evidence offered at trial does not show that the building materials were the source of the lead. This provided the appeals court with a matter of fact to remand to the lower court.

Read the court’s decision…