Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

April 10, 2019 — Stella Szantova Giordano - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
As all insurance coverage attorneys know, how courts interpret certain words and phrases in insurance policies is significant since one word can make the difference between a claim being covered or not. On January 28, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in the Ferro v. Weiner1 decision, clarified the jurisprudence on the meaning of “living in the same household” in the context of homeowners policies. Background Facts Ms. Enid Weiner owned a lakeside home which was insured under a homeowners policy through Intact Insurance Company (the “Intact Policy”). The Policy listed only Enid Weiner as the Named Insured, but provided coverage to her relatives “while living in the same household” for liability for unintentional bodily injury arising from an insured’s “personal actions anywhere in the world.” Although the lake house was used as a vacation home when Ms. Weiner’s children were small, it was her primary residence for about ten years before she moved into a nursing home. While she never permanently moved back, her three grown children and their families used the house as a cottage, with Enid occasionally accompanying them. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

February 07, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insureds attempt to secure coverage for ensuing losses after foundation damage was properly denied by the insurer. Walker v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6683 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014). Two provisions excluding coverage under Nationwide's homeowner's policy were key to the court's decision. Exclusion 3 (e) barred coverage for "continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water or stem over a period of time . . . ." Exclusion 3 (f) (6) precluded coverage for settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roof or ceiling. The policy also included a Dwelling Foundation Endorsement which covered settling, cracking, bulging of floor slabs or footings that supported the dwelling caused by seepage or leakage of water or steam. This endorsement stated the limit of liability would not exceed an amount equal to 15% of the limit of coverage for the dwelling. 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

South African Building Industry in Line for More State Support

November 08, 2021 — Prinesha Naidoo - Bloomberg
South Africa’s government is planning more measures to bolster its ailing building industry after banning the use of imported cement on state construction projects. “Government is undertaking research across a range of construction-related products where there appears to be significant potential for localization,” Stephen Hanival, chief economist at the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, said in an emailed response to questions. “Further announcements will be made in due course.” The country’s preferential procurement policy framework enables the department to designate sectors for localization in line with national development and industrial policy goals. While the government has pursued localization since 2014, it has become more strategic since the advent of the pandemic with business, government and labor groups agreeing on an initial list of 42 products and sub-sectors that should be prioritized, Hanival said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prinesha Naidoo, Bloomberg

Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss

November 14, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's claim for consequential damages survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Tiffany Tower Condominium, LLC v. Ins. Co. of the Greater N.Y., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5783 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 22, 2018). Tiffany Tower submitted a claim in November 2012 with Insurance Company of the Great New York for damages sustained by its building during Superstorm Sandy. The insurer paid the original claim in December 2012. Then, in September 2014, Tiffany Tower submitted a supplemental claim for additional losses which it asserted were caused by the storm. The insurer denied the supplemental claim. 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

Defects, Delays and Change Orders

November 01, 2021 — Jacob A. Epstein - Construction Executive
As every construction professional is aware, unexpected events and problems are guaranteed on every large project. Defects, delays and change orders are sure to arise, and depending on how they are dealt with and addressed at the time, they can either have minimal effects on the overall project or they can have drastic, long-term and often costly effects, including but not limited to thousands of dollars in legal fees, increases in insurance premiums and/or years of litigation down the road. There are many reasons why so many large construction projects end up in some type of litigation. Delay claims, construction contract disputes and construction defect lawsuits are so prevalent in certain parts of the country that certain judges designate specific time blocks in their courtrooms for construction cases only—just to deal with the large portions of their case dockets dealing with construction issues at the same time. Reprinted courtesy of Jacob A. Epstein, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Epstein may be contacted at jepstein@haber.law

Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

September 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Los Angeles Register, “Southern California homeowners often have repairs or improvements done to their property without getting the required building permits,” which sometimes, may be fine, but other times it leads to disastrous problems. The Register used an example of a San Clemente couple who had issues selling their home when a building inspector found that weep screeds were covered up by a cement deck installed by a contractor. The contractor also failed to get building permits for the work that was done. The buyer stated that repairs needed to be done prior to the sale. According to Mac MacKenzie, an agent at Coldwell Banker in Irvine, the situation is not uncommon: “We’ve had (permit problems) kill deals before, and we’ve had them almost kill deals. If it’s serious enough, it can stop a transaction from closing.” Permits are generally required “for any alteration, major repairs or new construction,” according to the Register, while they are not necessary “for minor repairs, such as fixing leaky pipes, painting, new carpeting or new kitchen countertops.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

April 01, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Department of Labor announced late last year that it had recovered nearly $2 million in back wages and fringe benefits from a subcontractor that provided constructions services at the federally funded Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in the Nevada desert. This was not a failure to pay Davis Bacon wages, but a failure to properly classify laborers on the project. The DOL determined that the laborers should have been paid as skilled trade steelworkers, not general laborers. As the subcontractor found out, this proved very costly. The subcontractor submitted its bid, classifying its laborers as general laborers and designating their wage at $30.00. The laborers were to assemble billboard sized mirrors on the project. There is some indication that the Department of Energy agreed with the classification, even though the Department of Labor has the final say on classifications. The Department of Labor’s investigation revealed that the laborers routinely performed duties in skilled trades, such as ironworking, electrical work, painting or bridge crane operation. Based on these activities, the Department of Labor concluded that the laborers should have been paid $60.00 per hour plus fringe benefits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Cross-Office Team Secures Defense Verdict in Favor of Client in Asbestos Case

November 18, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
St. Louis/Kansas City, Mo. (October 23, 2024) - St. Louis Partners Tracy J. Cowan and Karen M. Volkman, along with Kansas City Partner Vincent Gunter, secured a defense verdict in a Jackson County, Missouri matter on behalf of a Lewis Brisbois client, which was the successor-in-interest to a life, health and reinsurance firm, against claims brought by an individual who worked in the corporate headquarters and was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Background The plaintiff was 62 years old when she was diagnosed with mesothelioma. She worked as a clerk for several years in the 1970s in a 19-story office building that opened in 1963. The plaintiff claimed construction work being performed in the areas where she worked exposed her to asbestos from above the suspended ceiling. The beams and girders in the building were fireproofed with sprayed-on insulation. Although the plaintiff did not perform any maintenance work, she relied on evidence from several operating engineers who worked above the ceiling near the fireproofing to establish the presence of asbestos in the building. The plaintiff submitted claims for negligence and unsafe workplace. At the beginning of trial, the LBBS client had a pending motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was governed by the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law. The Court denied a motion to continue the trial and submitted the workers’ compensation issue as an affirmative defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES