SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

It’s Not What You Were Thinking!

December 10, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
At least it is not what the lower court was thinking… but the same result for a general contractor seeking to have its comprehensive general liability insurer pay the GC’s defense related to claims for physical damage on a construction project. In reviewing the Massachusetts federal district court’s ruling in favor of the insurer, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals posited: “The principal question is whether a general contractor’s CGL insurance policy covers damage to a non-defective part of the contractor’s project resulting from a subcontractor’s defective work on a different part of that project.” The district court had held under Massachusetts law that the insurer had no duty to defend because the lawsuit “did not allege ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘ occurrence,’ as required for coverage” under the policy (a defense that was urged by the insurer). The Court of Appeals affirmed, “albeit for different reasons.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

March 08, 2011 — Colorado Construction Litigation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently concluded that the “owned property exclusion” applied to bar coverage for claims of property damage. See Panico v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2011 WL 322830 (10th Cir. 2011). In Panico, the plaintiffs sold property in Aspen, Colorado to the Taylors, who sued the Panicos upon discovering the property was not as represented. After refusing to defend, the Panicos sued State Farm for breach of contract. The district court concluded that the Taylors’ claims were not covered under the Panicos insurance policies and granted summary judgment in State Farm’s favor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.



Mr. Panico built the house on the property as well as several additions to the house. As the Taylors lived in Florida, they primarily relied on their real estate agent and an inspector to ensure the property was acceptable. According to their complaint, the Taylors discovered that the house was “virtually uninhabitable due to serious design and construction defects, mold, rodents, and drainage problems.” Id. at *1. In their complaint, the Taylors asserted three claims for relief against the Panicos based upon misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment about the condition of the property.



Read the full story...



Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Ms Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

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

---

Liability Insurer’s Duty To Defend Insured Is Broader Than Its Duty To Indemnify

June 03, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to liability insurance, an insurer’s duty to defend its insured from a third-party claim is much broader than its duty to indemnify. This broad duty to defend an insured is very important and, as an insured, you need to know this. “A liability insurer’s obligation, with respect to its duty to defend, is not determined by the insured’s actual liability but rather by whether the alleged basis of the action against the insurer falls within the policy’s coverage.” Advanced Systems, Inc. v. Gotham Ins. Co., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D996b (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (internal quotation omitted). This means: Even where the complaint alleges facts partially within and partially outside the coverage of a policy, the insurer is nonetheless obligated to defend the entire suit, even if the facts later demonstrate that no coverage actually exists. And, the insurer must defend even if the allegations in the complaint are factually incorrect or meritless. As such, an insurer is obligated to defend a claim even if it is uncertain whether coverage exists under the policy. Furthermore, once a court finds that there is a duty to defend, the duty will continue even though it is ultimately determined that the alleged cause of action is groundless and no liability is found within the policy provisions defining coverage. Advanced Systems, supra(internal citations and quotations omitted). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

July 05, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly

The insured homeowners were unsuccessful in arguing around the policy's exclusions when seeking coverage for damage caused by Chinese drywall. Ross v. C. Adams. Constr. & Design, L.L.C., 2011 La. App. LEXIS 769 (La. Ct. App. June 14, 2011).



Before the insureds purchased and moved into their home, it was renovated. After moving in, the insures discovered foreign gypsum drywall, or Chinese drywall. The insureds submitted a claim to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. In an investigation, the insurer confirmed the presence of Chinese drywall and damage to the metal surfaces caused by corrosion. Louisiana Citizens refused coverage and the insureds sued. The trial court denied the insured's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Louisiana Citizens.



The court of appeal affirmed. Initially, the court determined the insureds sustained a direct physical loss. The inherent qualities of the Chinese drywall created a physical loss to the home and required that the drywall be removed and replaced.



Four exclusions, however, barred coverage. First, damages due to faulty or defective materials were excluded from coverage. The Chinese drywall emitted high levels of sulfuric gas which caused the damage to the insured's plumbing, electrical wiring and metal components.



Read the full story…

 

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

World-Famous Architects Design $480,000 Gazebos for Your Backyard

December 10, 2015 — Katya Kazakina – Bloomberg
Star architects known for dreaming up museums, concert halls, and stadiums are aiming to bring high design into a much more pedestrian segment: prefabricated, mixed-use structures. If you don't want to spring for one of Zaha Hadid's $50 million penthouses, you can now have your own outdoor dining pavilion by the Pritzker Prize winner. Price tag: $480,000. Made with wood, stainless steel, and aluminum, the curvy piece comprises a platform and a sprawling, perforated canopy, resembling a giant mushroom straight out of Alice in Wonderland. (This is a Hadid, after all.) It will be made in an edition of 24. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katya Kazakina, Bloomberg

---

The Investors Profiting Off Water Scarcity

June 10, 2024 — Linda Poon - Bloomberg
We’re excited to share that the Bloomberg Green series Water Grab was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist. The series, which includes contributions from several CityLab writers and alums, explores how private investors are commandeering public water for profit at the expense of both the environment and less powerful communities. Below is a sample of stories looking at how investors, private equity firms and Wall Street are taking advantage of the world’s scarce water supply. Read the full series here, which is now in front of the paywall. Reprinted courtesy of Linda Poon, Bloomberg Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Oregon Tort Claims Act (“OTCA”) Applies When a Duty Arises from Statute or Common Law and is Independent from The Terms of a Specific Contract. (OR)

February 25, 2014 — Natasha Khachatourians – Scheer & Zehnder LLP Liability Newsletter
Case: Jenkins v. Portland Housing Authority, 260 Or.App. 26, 316 P.3d 369 (2013). Issue: Do tort claims arising from a rental agreement fall within the exemption from the definition of a tort under the OTCA? NO. Facts: Plaintiff rented an apartment in a public housing complex operated by the Portland Housing Authority (“PHA”). While walking in the hallway of the building, Plaintiff slipped on a puddle of water that had leaked from a broken washing machine in a nearby laundry room. Plaintiff fell and was injured. The trial court granted summary judgment to PHA, finding that the PHA was considered a public body under the OTCA and, as a result, enjoyed discretionary immunity from liability. The issue before the court was whether the OTCA applied to a claim under the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act (“ORLTA”) since an ORLTA claim generally arises out of a rental agreement. Plaintiff did not plead breach of a specific provision of the rental agreement, and she conceded that she had alleged a breach of a legal duty resulting in injuries. Plaintiff argued, however, that her claim involved a duty arising from the rental agreement. As such, she contended her claim fell within the exception of the definition of a “tort” under OTCA, and thus the OTCA should not apply to give PHA discretionary immunity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Natasha Khachatourians, Scheer & Zehnder LLP
Ms. Khachatourians may be contacted at natashak@scheerlaw.com

---

Domtar Update

June 11, 2014 — Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLP
On May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur—i.e., the permission to appeal—in the controversial subrogation case, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 77 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). In its order granting the relief to Liberty Mutual, a workers’ compensation insurer, the Supreme Court set forth the narrow issue to be decided on appeal: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?” In Domtar, Liberty Mutual was caused to incur approximately $35,000 in compensation benefits which it paid on behalf of George Lawrence, an employee of Liberty Mutual’s insured, for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident. Mr. Lawrence chose not to file an independent personal injury lawsuit. As a result, in order to recover its lien interests, Liberty Mutual sued the third parties responsible for causing Mr. Lawrence’s work-related injuries directly, having become subrogated to the rights of Mr. Lawrence by virtue of Liberty Mutual’s workers’ compensation expenditure on his behalf. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

---