Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

October 21, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Diamond v. Reshko, (filed 8/20/2015, No. A139251) the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that a defendant was entitled to introduce evidence at trial reflecting amounts paid by co-defendants in settlement of a plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff, Christine Diamond, was injured during an automobile accident that occurred while she was a passenger in a taxi driven by Amir Mansouri. Christine, and her husband Andrew, filed suit against Mr. Mansouri, the Yellow Cab Collective (“Yellow Cab”), and the driver of the vehicle that collided with the taxi, Serge Reshko. Before trial, Mansouri and the Yellow Cab Collective settled with Plaintiffs, but agreed to appear and participate as defendants at the jury trial of the action. Mansouri and Yellow Cab paid a total of $400,000 to Plaintiffs in settlement. Reshko filed a pre-trial motion seeking an order permitting Reshko to admit evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs and the other defendants. The trial court refused to rule on the motion before trial. Ultimately, evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs, Mansouri and Yellow Cab was excluded during trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $745,778, finding Mansouri 40 percent at fault, and Reshko 60 percent at fault. The Trial Court entered judgment against Reshko in the sum of $406,698. Reshko appealed the judgment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that evidence of the settlement should have been admitted at trial because the settling defendant’s position should be revealed to the court and jury to avoid committing a fraud on the court, and in order to permit the trier of fact to properly weigh the settling defendant’s testimony. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Las Vegas’ McCarran Tower Construction Issues Delays Opening

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that an improperly applied chemical coating might delay the opening of McCarran International Airport’s Federal Aviation Administration tower by a year and cost millions of dollars to repair. The chemical coating was intended “to prevent the spread of toxic fungus,” but was “improperly applied and is ineffective,” workers on the site told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “Officials said the” $99 million, 352-foot “tower was expected to be operational by 2015, but the FAA now says it won’t be able to use the facility until late 2016 or early 2017.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Tips for Contractors Who Want to Help Rebuild After the California Wildfires

November 02, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
I received a call from one of my contractor clients this past week to see what he could do to help those affected by California’s North Bay fires. The North Bay fires are the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in California’s history. To date, the fires have claimed 42 lives, burned more than 200,000 acres of land, destroyed an estimated 8,400 structures and likely damaged tens of thousands more. By comparison, the state’s second most deadly wildfire, the Oakland Hills fire of 1991, claimed the lives of 25 people, burned 1,600 acres of land, and destroyed 2,900 structures. Rebuilding costs for the North Bay fires, according to the California Insurance Commissioner, are expected to top $1 billion. For those with insurance, insurance experts say that the rebuilding process can take two years or more for those whose homes and businesses were destroyed. For those whose homes and businesses were fortunate enough only to be damaged, rebuilding efforts are already underway. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

March 02, 2020 — Bethany L. Barrese & Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Aggreko, LLC v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co.,1 the Fifth Circuit affirmed a decision by the Texas District Court and held that a Covenant Not to Execute constituted a “settlement” sufficient to exhaust policy limits and terminate a primary insurer’s duty to defend. This case arose out of a wrongful death suit filed by the parents of James Brenek II (“Brenek”). In 2014, Brenek was fatally electrocuted by an electrically energized generator housing cabinet while performing work on a rig in Texas for Guichard Operating Company, LLC (“Guichard”), a Louisiana-based drilling subcontractor. Guichard had leased the generator from Aggreko, LLC (“Aggreko”). A rental agreement between Guichard and Aggreko required Guichard to maintain commercial general liability insurance during the lease period and list Aggreko and the rig owner, Rutherford Oil Corporation (“Rutherford”), as additional insureds under the policy. Guichard’s primary insurance carrier, The Gray Insurance Company (“Gray”), agreed to defend and indemnify Aggreko and Rutherford in the wrongful death suit. The Gray policy had a limit of $1,000,000, subject to a $50,000 self-insured retention. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at amw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

BWB&O Senior Associate Kyle Riddles and Associate Alexandria Heins Obtain a Trial Victory in a Multi-Million Dollar Case!

May 01, 2023 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Newport Beach Senior Associate Kyle Riddles and Associate Alexandria Heins obtained a significant trial victory on behalf of their client in a multi-million dollar dispute stemming from the construction of a commercial expansion project at a beachfront resort. The owner of the resort alleged that the general contractor was responsible for a significant delay to the completion of the expansion project. The general contractor filed a cross-complaint against BWB&O’s client in an attempt to pass through the delay claims to BWB&O’s client. The general contractor’s delay expert alleged a total 441 days of delay to the completion of the project. A significant portion of the delay was apportioned to BWB&O’s client, for which it faced substantial contractual damages. Senior Associate Kyle Riddles expertly crossed key witnesses and obtained testimony that was extremely favorable to its client. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

February 23, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The additional insured unsuccessfully sought to recover damages to its building caused by the named insured. Brit UW, Ltd. v. Tripar, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2462 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2017). Davis Russell Real Estate and Management LLC hired Tripar, Inc., a general contractor, to renovate a 12-unit apartment building. The entire roof was to be replaced by a roofing subcontractor. Davis Russell drafted a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) that governed the project. Tripar was to obtain a CGL policy and provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the coverage. Davis Russell was to be named as an additional insured. Tripar's insurance broker prepared a certificate of insurance reflecting that a CGL policy was issued to Tripar by Brit UW, Ltd. But the certificate clearly stated that it was not issued by the insurer and that it did not alter coverage. The certificate of insurance further stated that it conferred no rights upon the holder. 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

Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

April 27, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
On January 27th, Senator Robert Rodriguez introduced SB 20-138 into the Colorado Legislature. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and has not yet been scheduled for its first hearing in that committee. In short, Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would:

Extend Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
Require tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
Permit statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.

Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims are codified at C.R.S. § 13-80-104. In 1986, the Colorado Legislature set the statute of repose period at 6+2 years. For the last 34 years, Colorado’s statute of repose for owners’ claims against construction professionals has been substantially the same, to wit:

(1) (a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.

(2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.

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

Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

December 02, 2019 — Mary B. Powers & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
With its term now under way, the U.S. Supreme Court could change federal laws with industry impact—from where huge pipelines can be built and new regulation of pollution in groundwater to whether LGBTQ workers have anti-bias rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES