Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Pinnacle Controls in Verano

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The California Court of Appeals has applied the California Supreme Court’s recent Pinnacle decision to a new case, Verano Condominium Association v. La Cima Development. As in Pinnacle, La Cima sought to compel arbitration of construction defect claims with a homeowners association. The trial court denied La Cima’s attempt to compel arbitration on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was made with the individual homeowners and not the homeowners association. Further, it was determined that the CC&Rs “were unenforceable due to unconscionability.” La Cima appealed, and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. After Pinnacle, La Cima sought a review. The Supreme Court of California directed the appeals court to vacate their earlier decision and reconsider, based on Pinnacle. The Fourth Circuit Court has concluded that this conflicted with the ruling in Pinnacle. There, as in Verano, homeowners signed agreements that disputes with the developer would be settled through binding arbitration. The appeals court had found for the community association, but on review, the California Supreme Court reversed this decision. The California Court of Appeals had two issue to consider in this review: whether the arbitration provisions applied to the homeowners association, and whether these provisions were unconscionable. The court concluded that “in light of Pinnacle it is clear the arbitration provisions set forth in the Verano CC&Rs constitute a valid agreement to arbitrate.” On the second question, the Verano CC&Rs were described by the court as “materially indistinguishable” from those in the earlier case. As the state Supreme Court found that those were not unconscionable, clearly neither were these. The case was remanded for further proceedings and La Cima is entitled to recover the costs of the appeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Awarding Insurer Summary Judgment Before Discovery Completed Reversed

August 29, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's awarding of summary judgment to the insurer because discovery was not completed. Sacramento v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 4292 (Fla. Ct. App. June 22, 2022). The insured filed a claim under the all-risk policy for water damage caused by Hurricane Irma. Citizens denied the claim based upon a policy exclusion. The insured filed suit on March 8, 2019. On April 24, 2020, Citizens moved for summary judgment. A hearing was set for August 10, 2020. Citizens filed a notice for a deposition of a Mitigation Company representative scheduled to occur on December 1, 2020. On August 14, 2020, the insured filed an opposition to the summary judgment motion arguing that it would be premature to grant the motion because there were still pending depositions. The insured specifically requested that the trial court not enter summary judgment until the mitigation company's representative was deposed because he was a key witness who would be testifying regarding the cause of loss. 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

Nevada Legislature Burns Insurers' Rights to Offer Eroding Limits

August 28, 2023 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Nevada’s legislature recently passed a groundbreaking law imposing two prohibitions on insurers. First, the law prohibits insurers from issuing or renewing any liability insurance policy with an “eroding limits” provision. While the first section of the law will have the most immediate effects, the statute goes further, generally prohibiting insurers from limiting the availability of coverage for the costs of defense, legal costs and fees, and other claim expenses. This second section leaves a great deal to interpretation, with the potential to massively expand policyholder rights, and may throw the traditional structure of liability insurance policies into question. Nevada Statute §679a provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an insurer, including, without limitation, an insurer listed in NRS 679A.160, shall not issue or renew a policy of liability insurance that contains a provision that:

Reduces the limit of liability stated in the policy by the costs of defense, legal costs and fees and other expenses for claims; or
Otherwise limits the availability of coverage for the costs of defense, legal costs and fees and other expenses for claims.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at WBennett@sdvlaw.com

Surplus Lines Carriers Cannot Compel Arbitration in Louisiana

May 29, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the surplus lines insurer's motion to compel arbitration based on Lousiana's law prohibiting arbitrations of coverage disputes. Fairway Village Condominiums v. Independent Spec. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62135 (E.D. La. April 20, 2023). The plaintiff's condominium complex was damaged by Hurricane Ida. A claim was filed with the insurer. The insurer made an initial advance payment of $200,000. Three additional payments were made bringing the total to $951,462.49, which was less than half of the proof of loss amounts submitted by plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith. The insurer filed a motion to compel arbitration based upon an arbitration provision in the policy. Recognizing that Louisiana law prohibited enforcement of a policy's arbitration clause, the insurer argued it did not apply because it was a surplus lines carrier. 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

Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 3: Standard Form Policy Exclusions

July 11, 2022 — Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Even when claims are within the scope of coverage, insurers often rely on exclusions in an attempt to avoid coverage for wildfire claims. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the interplay between coverage grants and exclusions, and the “anti-concurrent cause” provision. Insurers may cite exclusions in an attempt to reduce or avoid liability. The insurance industry has long relied on the Insurance Services Office (ISO) to draft standard form policy language and secure approval as required by state regulatory agencies. ISO Form HO 00 03 10 00 (Section I—Exclusions, Part B) provides the following form exclusionary language: We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

January 14, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the trial court's issuance of summary judgment to the title insurer on a bad faith claim and remanded the case. Anastasi v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 2014 Haw. App. LEXIS 585 (Haw. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014). Fidelity issued a title insurance policy to Anastasi insuring that Alajos Nagy had good title to the property. The policy insured Anastasi against loss in the event a mortgage on the property executed by Nagy was not enforceable. Anastasi had loaned $2.4 million to Nagy and Nagy had executed the mortgage in favor of Anastasi as security for the loan. 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

SEC Proposes Rule Requiring Public Firms to Report Climate Risks

April 11, 2022 — Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a proposal March 21—both anticipated and feared—that would require publicly-traded companies to standardize disclosure for the first time of climate-related business risks such as those related to severe weather and decarbonization. Exchange-listed firms would also have to report greenhouse gas emissions, their own and in the supply chain, creating a major reporting mandate. The rules also apply to firms listed on overseas exchanges that operate in the U.S. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

May 02, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
“The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine” – Plutarch And grind they do . . . slowly. For long time readers of the California Construction Law Blog you may recall a case we reported on over three years ago in 2018 – Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated – a rather sad case about a severely injured employee of an electrical subcontractor with an even more surprisingly ending. In Sandoval, the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed a $7 million judgment against project owner Qualcomm Incorporated in which a jury found that Qualcomm was liable under the Privette doctrine for injuries sustained by the employee who was severely burned over one third of his body by an “arc flash” from a live circuit breaker. The Court of Appeals, in a surprising decision, upheld the verdict holding that Qualcomm was liable even through: (1) Qualcomm had informed the electrical subcontractor that certain live circuit breakers were energized; (2) Qualcomm had not authorized the lower-tiered contractor to remove a panel that resulted in the arc flash; and (3) employees of Qualcomm were not in the room when the accident happened. Fast forward three years to September 2021. Qualcomm attorneys petition the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. And the Supreme Court granted review. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES