SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

“Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

April 18, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As they say, when it rains, it pours. Indemnity and insurance are the “Big Two” when it comes to risk avoidance on construction projects. The next case, LaBarbera v. Security National Security Company, 86 Cal.App.5th 1329 (2022), involves both. It’s an interesting case, which I think could have gone either way, involving claims by a higher-tiered party that they were a third party beneficiary under an insurance policy in which they were not named as an additional insured. The LaBarbera Case The Indemnity Provision and Insurance Policy In June 1016, Chris LaBarbera hired Richard Knight doing business as Knight Construction to remodel his house in Carmichael, California. The construction contract included an indemnity provision which provided that Knight would defend and indemnify LaBarbera from all claims arising out the remodeling work except for claims arising from LaBarbera’s sole negligence and willful misconduct. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Bad Faith Jury Verdict Upheld After Insurer's Failure to Settle Within Policy Limits

June 30, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict which determined that the insurer acted in bad faith for failing to settle within policy limits. Bamford, Inc. v. Regent Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8787 (8th Cir. May 13, 2016). 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

---

Co-Housing Startups Fly in the Face of Old-School NYC Housing Law

December 18, 2022 — Amelia Pollard & Diego Lasarte - Bloomberg
A room in an eight-bedroom Bed-Stuy brownstone with “charming views.” A five-bedroom “modern Manhattan” home. In a housing market as hot as New York City’s, these units advertised on co-housing companies’ websites sound promising. According to the city’s housing regulations, however, neither is legal. That hasn’t stopped companies from offering the rooms, as renters clamor for affordable living space. With the average studio apartment in Manhattan going for nearly $3,100 a month, newcomers to the city often find living with multiple roommates to be their best affordable-housing option. It’s a trend that startups have jumped on, and one some experts endorse as a way to quickly scale up affordable housing — even though municipal housing laws aren’t on board yet. The reality is that in many cities, housing laws that limit the number of unrelated individuals in a dwelling are still in place. New York, for instance, doesn’t allow more than three unrelated people to live in the same unit. To be sure, New Yorkers often break that law, as expensive housing forces people to find roommates through friends or on sites like Craigslist. But multimillion-dollar companies breaking that law is new.  Reprinted courtesy of Amelia Pollard, Bloomberg and Diego Lasarte, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

2017 California Employment Law Update

January 13, 2017 — Evelin Y. Bailey - California Construction Law Blog
Below are some of the new laws going into effect this year that affect the construction industry. Unless otherwise noted, the laws go into effect on January 1, 2017. Public Works and Prevailing Wages You can read more about the new laws—AB 326, AB 1926 and SB 954—relating to public works and prevailing wages in an earlier blog post. Employment Contracts Choice of Forum and Choice of Law. Under SB 1241, an employer cannot require an employee who primarily works and resides in California to agree to file a lawsuit or bring a claim in another state when the claim arises in California. This is usually referred to as the choice of forum clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Evelin Y. Bailey, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Ms. Bailey may be contacted at ebailey@wendel.com

---

What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

February 28, 2018 — Ben Reeves – Real Estate Litigation blog / Snell & Wilmer
Introduction Arizona’s trustee’s sale statutory scheme provides for the waiver of all defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale that: (i) are not raised prior to the sale, and (ii) do not result in an injunction against the sale going forward. See A.R.S. § 33-811(C). In other words, if you have an objection to a trustee’s sale, you must seek and obtain an injunction prior to the sale or your objection will be waived. Arizona’s Court of Appeals previously held that notwithstanding this statutory waiver, “common law” defenses to repayment of the debt survive a non-judicial foreclosure even in the absence of an injunction prior to the sale. See Morgan AZ Financial, L.L.C. v. Gotses, 235 Ariz. 21, 326 P.3d 288 (Ct. App. 2014). Our analysis of the Morgan decision can be found here. In Zubia v. Shapiro, 243 Ariz. 412, 408 P.3d 1248 (2018), the Arizona Supreme Court revisited the issue of what claims survive a trustee’s sale, and clarified that if a person fails to enjoin a trustee’s sale prior to its occurrence, then that person waives any and all damages claims dependent upon a trustee’s sale. That person does not, however, waive damages claims that are independent of the sale. Thus, determining what types of claims are “dependent” versus “independent” of a trustee’s sale is of critical importance to lenders and borrowers alike. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

---

Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

September 28, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters & Jorge R. Aviles - Hunton Andrews Kurth
In a victory for policyholders, a federal district court found that COVID-19 can cause physical loss under business-interruption policies. In Studio 417, Inc., et al. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2020), the court rejected the argument often advanced by insurers that “all-risks” property insurance policies require a physical, structural alteration to trigger coverage. This decision shows that, with correct application of policy-interpretation principles and strategic use of pleading and evidence, policyholders can defeat the insurance industry’s “party line” arguments that business-interruption insurance somehow cannot apply to pay for the unprecedented losses businesses are experiencing from COVID-19, public-safety orders, loss of use of business assets, and other governmental edicts. The policyholders in Studio 417 operate hair salons and restaurants asserting claims for business interruption. In suing to enforce their coverage, the policyholders allege that, over the last several months, it is likely that customers, employees, and/or other visitors to the insured properties were infected with COVID-19 and thereby infected the insured properties with the virus. Their complaint asserts that the presence of COVID-19 “renders physical property in their vicinity unsafe and unusable.” Unlike some other complaints seeking to enforce such coverage, it also alleges that the presence of COVID-19 and government “Closure Orders” “caused a direct physical loss or direct physical damage” to their premises “by denying use of and damaging the covered property, and by causing a necessary suspension of operations during a period of restoration.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Latosha Ellis Selected for 2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Pathfinder Program

April 10, 2019 — Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
Hunton Andrews Kurth has selected Latosha Ellis, an associate in the firm’s Insurance Coverage practice, for the 2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Pathfinder Program. Pathfinder is a national yearlong program that trains diverse, high performing, early-career attorneys in critical career development strategies, including foundational leadership and building professional networks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

---

Federal Court Sets High Bar for Pleading Products Liability Cases in New Jersey

November 11, 2024 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Products liability is an area of law that both sides of the aisle vigorously litigate. Like in most litigation, products liability claims provide subrogation attorneys with an important means of prosecuting cases against manufacturers, sellers, and other entities in the stream of commerce. Of course, these claims also come with numerous “buyer beware” requirements. New Jersey allows products liability claims and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court) clarified how such claims should be plead in Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. a/s/o David Krug vs. Stihl, Inc., No. 22-05893, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178804 (D. N.J.). After becoming subrogated to the rights of its insured, Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Cambridge) filed suit against Stihl, Inc. (Stihl) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, Law Division. Stihl then removed the case to federal court. Once in federal court, Stihl filed a motion to dismiss the action. The District Court granted the motion, doing so in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---