Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

October 22, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion dulling the teeth of the “no voluntary payment” clauses found in many contractors’ insurance policies. In the case of Stresscon Corporation v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 2013 WL 4874352 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals found that an insured’s breach of the “no voluntary payment” clause does not always bar the insured from receiving benefits from its insurance company. In July 2007, at a construction project run by Mortenson (the “GC”), a partially erected building collapsed, killing one worker and gravely injuring another. The collapse was caused by a crane hook pulling a concrete component off of its supports. The GC contracted with Stresscon Corporation (“Stresscon”) to build pre-cast concrete components for the project, and in turn Stresscon hired two sub-subcontractors, RMS and Hardrock (the “Crane Team”) to work together to erect those concrete components. Stresscon and the Crane Team had liability insurance, and Stresscon was insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”). The accident led to three separate lawsuits: 1) one brought by the deceased worker; 2) one brought by the injured worker; and 3) one brought by the GC against Stresscon claiming it was entitled to contract damages incurred because the project was delayed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

Mortenson Subcontractor Fires Worker Over Meta Data Center Noose

April 19, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A worker on a data center project for Facebook parent company Meta in Utah was fired after admitting to tying a noose at the worksite where racist graffiti had also been found months earlier. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Denies Insured's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking to Compel Appraisal

March 13, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insured's motion to dismiss after the insurer filed suit to compel an appraisal. Allied Trust Ins. Co. v. Tsang, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 352 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2023). The insureds reported damage to their property arising from Hurricane Ida. The insurer, Allied Trust, investigated and determined that the covered damage was $1,978.18, which was less that the policy's deductible. The insureds estimated that the covered damage was $135,270.78. Allied Trust invoked the appraisal provision. Allied Trust later filed suit alleging the insureds failed to comply and participate in the appraisal. The insureds moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. In their motion, the insureds argued that because they were now complying with the appraisal clause, all relief sought by Allied Trust had either already occurred or was currently underway. 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

Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

November 17, 2016 — Gary A. Bague – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
During ALFA International’s (ALFA) Annual Business Meeting on October 28, the membership elected Gary Bague to serve as the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Gary’s term as Chairman will run through October 2018. After he completes his term as Chairman, Gary will continue to serve on the Board of Directors as Chair Emeritus for two years. The Board of Directors is responsible for establishing all policies relative to accomplishing the purposes of ALFA, recommending the Corporation’s budget to the Membership, approving applications for membership, supervising the work of the Chief Executive Officer, and otherwise managing the business and affairs of ALFA. As Chairman of the Board, Gary will preside over all meetings of the Executive Committee, Board of Directors, and Membership. He will also serve as an ex officio member of all committees, and will have the duties of a president of the Corporation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gary A. Bague, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Bague may be contacted at gbague@hbblaw.com

Estoppel Certificate? Estop and Check Your Lease

May 06, 2019 — Lauren Podgorski - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
If you are leasing space in a building, there may come a time when you receive a request from your landlord to fill out and sign an estoppel certificate. Estoppel certificates are usually sent to tenants in connection with the sale or refinance of a building, and a third party may rely on the accuracy of the statements and information contained in the estoppel certificate in connection with that transaction. Estoppel certificates can range from a very simple, one-page document, to several pages. I’ve received an estoppel certificate in the mail. What do I do now? Consider the following: Check your lease. Your lease may require you to deliver the signed estoppel certificate and may even give you a timeframe within which you are required to return it. A form of estoppel certificate may also be included in your lease as an exhibit. If you’ve previously agreed to a form of estoppel certificate in your lease, check to ensure the one you have received matches the form you previously agreed to and if it doesn’t make sure to review it carefully to make sure it is acceptable. Review the estoppel certificate and confirm that all of the information is accurate. Be on the lookout for any terms or provisions that you did not agree to in your lease. If it seems like the landlord is trying to modify your lease, you likely do not need to consent to the change in this document. Cross off (or modify or delete, if you have an electronic copy) any information that is inaccurate. Fill in all blanks (if the blank is not applicable, write “N/A”), and if any exhibits are referenced in the body of the document, make sure they are actually attached. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lauren Podgorski, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Podgorski may be contacted at lpodgorski@swlaw.com

How to Remove a Mechanics Lien from Your Property

March 21, 2022 — Hannah Kreuser - Porter Law Group
It sometimes happens that a contractor or material supplier records a mechanics lien on your property that becomes expired. Other times, the mechanics lien may be wrong, invalid and unenforceable for some reason, serving no legitimate purpose. The contractor or material supplier may be reasonable and release the mechanics lien once these issues are brought to its attention, but the contractor or material supplier may very well refuse to release the mechanics lien when requested. When this happens, what are your options? In California, there are various ways to bring this type of mechanics lien to a court’s attention in the hopes that the court will cause it to be released. Three of the more common methods are: (1) a petition under California Civil Code (“CCC”) § 8480; (2) a petition under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 765.010; or (3) a Lambert motion. This article will briefly discuss each of these methods. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law Group
Ms. Kreuser may be contacted at hkreuser@porterlaw.com

Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims

May 18, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
On February 7th, Representative Garnett, with Senator Fenberg as the Senate sponsor, introduced HB 20-1290, concerning the ability of an insurer to use a failure-to-cooperate defense in an action in which the insured has made a claim for insurance coverage. If the bill were to pass, in order to plead or prove a failure-to-cooperate defense in any action concerning first-party insurance benefits, the following conditions must be met:

The carrier has submitted a written request for information the carrier seeks to the insured or the insured’s representative, by certified mail;
The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
The information sought would be discoverable in litigation;

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

Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

April 26, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorezCDJ STAFF

Decision Affirmed in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the trial court in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate. In the trial case, Central Arkansas Foundation Homes (CAFH) sought payment for a home built for Choate, while Choate alleged that the builders committed multiple construction defects including using the wrong foundation materials and positioning the house in the wrong direction.

After the house was built, CAFH contacted Choate regarding payment, however, Choate alleged that the finished product did not match the contract. “ After CAFH completed construction, it obtained permanent home financing for Choate and tried to contact her to close the transaction. Choate did not respond until October 2005, when she sent CAFH a list of alleged construction defects, including that the house was facing in the wrong direction; that it was not built on a slab; and that the fireplace, garbage disposal, driveway, and storage area were missing. CAFH replied to Choate in writing, telling her that she had until January 6, 2006, to close on the house or CAFH would sell it. The correspondence enclosed worksheets showing that the amount Choate would owe at closing exceeded $94,000, which included interest that had accrued on the as-yet unpaid construction loan.”

Initially, the court found in favor of CAFH. “On April 18, 2007, Choate’s attorney withdrew from representing her. Soon thereafter, CAFH’s attorney asked the court to set a final hearing on the case. The attorney purportedly sent Choate a letter by regular mail on May 15, 2007, advising her that the case was set for trial on July 9, 2007. Choate, however, did not appear. CAFH did appear, and its general manager, John Oldner, testified to events leading up to the case and the amount of damages claimed. According to Oldner, the interest on the construction loan had accrued to the point that CAFH now sought $104,965.88 from Choate. The court found in favor of CAFH and entered judgment for that amount, plus attorney fees, on July 18, 2007. The court ruled that CAFH could sell the house and either remit any excess to Choate or look to Choate for the deficiency if the sales price did not cover the judgment.”

However, Choate successfully argued that she did not receive notice of the trial. A new trial was ordered, and the outcome was quite different. “On June 6, 2008, the circuit court entered judgment for Choate, ruling that the house was not in substantial compliance with the parties’ contract and that the contract should be rescinded. The court found that the house suffered from numerous construction defects, that the contract contemplated a slab rather than a concrete-pier foundation, and that CAFH ignored Choate’s complaints that the house was facing the wrong way. The judgment directed CAFH to hold Choate harmless on the construction loan, to deed Choate’s two acres back to her, and to remove the house from Choate’s property.”

The Court of Appeals “found that Choate would be unjustly enriched by retaining the benefit of the septic systems and utility lines that CAFH installed on her land. The court therefore awarded $5340 to CAFH as a quantum-meruit recovery for the value of that work. CAFH contends that the award is not sufficient, but we see no clear error.” In the end, the Court of Appeals provided this reason for declining to reverse the trial court’s decision: “The court in this case apparently concluded that the house constructed by CAFH was so fundamentally at odds with Choate’s contractual expectations that she was not unjustly enriched and should simply be, as nearly as possible, returned to the status quo ante. Accordingly, the court ordered the house removed from her property and permitted CAFH to either relocate the house or salvage the house’s materials and unused appliances. We decline to reverse the court’s weighing of the equities in this manner.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES