Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

December 06, 2021 — Patricia B. Santelle & Frank J. Perch, III - White and Williams LLP
A recent New York federal district court decision addresses a number of issues in the context of asbestos coverage involving an insolvent insured, holding that policy buyout agreements between the insured and its insurers did not bar actions by certain tort judgment creditors against some of the settling insurers, and further finding that such agreements can constitute fraudulent conveyances, especially where the proceeds of the settlement are not reserved for payment of insured claims. In the litigation pending in the Western District of New York (Mineweaser v. One Beacon Insurance Company, et al., No. 14-CV-0585A), certain asbestos plaintiffs sought recovery from excess insurers for judgments obtained against an insolvent asbestos supplier (Hedman Resources, formerly known as Hedman Mines), which ceased operations in 2007 due to insolvency. Hedman had at one time been a subsidiary of Gulf & Western. As of 2009-2011, the excess insurers of Gulf & Western were advised of exhaustion of primary insurance as well as Hedman’s insolvency. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

January 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

While building's first collapse was not covered, there were disputed facts regarding the second collapse, leading to a reversal of the order granting summary judgment to the insurer on both collapses. Intergroup Int'l Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos, 2017 Ohio app. LEXIS 5099 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017). Intergroup bought a building after it was inspected. While leaks on the roof were repaired and a roof truss that was sagging was replaced, the inspector found the roof to be in good shape.

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

Fixing That Mistake

October 25, 2021 — Patrick Barthet - Construction Executive
Someone once said, more people could learn from their mistakes if they weren’t so busy denying that they made them in the first place. In the construction industry, mistakes are not uncommon. Addressing them, however, can be complicated. What should a contractor do when the project owner says some aspect of the project is not satisfactorily completed or isn’t performing as it should? Should the contractor wait, hoping it may get resolved without having to do anything? Or should the contractor take on the repair or replacement as soon as practically possible? Doing nothing may be easy but can expose the contractor to significant subsequent liability. Dealing with the issue, on the other hand, could result in the destruction of what might later be required evidence in any litigation which develops. Considered “spoliation,” such manipulation or elimination of evidence is a consequence to be avoided. Even though done with the best of intentions to fix a problem, the process can wind up exposing one to liability and damages. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Barthet, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Barthet may be contacted at pbarthet@barthet.com

Michigan Finds Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Work

August 24, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Michigan Supreme Court held that under a CGL policy, an "accident" may include unintentional subcontractor work that damages the insured's work product. Skanska USA Building Inc. v. M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors, Inc., et al., 2020 Mich. LEXIS 1194 (Mich. June 29, 2020). Skanska USA Building Inc. was the construction manager on a renovation project for a medical centre. The heatng and cooling portion of the project was subcontracted to M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (MAP). MAP installed a steam builder and piping for the heating system. The installation included several expansion joints. After completion, Skanska learned that MAP had installed some of the expansion joints backward. This caused significant damage to concrete, steel and the heating system. The medical center sent a demand letter to Skanska, who send a demand letter to MAP. Skanska did the repairs and replacement of the damaged property. Skanska then submitted a claim of $1.4 million for its work to Amerisure Insurance Company. The claim was denied. 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

U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

August 24, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
What is the National Electrical Code? Did you know that as of 2017, there have been 15 revisions of The National Electrical Code since 1975, the year the average American home was built? The National Electrical Code codifies the minimum requirements for the safe electrical installations in a single, standardized source. While the NEC is not itself a law, the NEC is commonly mandated by state or local law. Where the NEC is adopted, anything less than the standards set by the NEC are illegal. The NEC revision is an open process that produces a new code every three years. The process includes:

Public Input
Public Commentary
NFPA Technical Session
Standards Council Action – Appeals and Issuance of the NEC

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

Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's order granting summary judgment to the insurer who denied a defense for a construction defect claim. Steel Supply & Eng'g Co. v. Illinois Nat'. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14363 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2015). Steel Supply contracted with the Carmel Redevelopment Corporation to fabricate and erect steel for a construction project in Carmel, Indiana. After the steel was erected, an iron worker at the site discovered defects in the steel. Subsequent investigations revealed additional defects. Carmel filed suit against Steel Supply for breach of contract. The complaint alleged that a critical connection that Steel Supply designed was inadequate to handle the forces coming onto it. Carmel claimed that the immediate need to remediate the steel damaged Carmel directly, and that other contractors sought damages from Carmel for harm caused by the delays. 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

Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

February 01, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents. In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

September 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES