Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Ninth Circuit Court Weighs In On Insurance Coverage For COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

October 11, 2021 — Rondi J. Walsh - Newmeyer Dillion
On October 1, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a trio of cases involving COVID-19 business interruption losses, in a series of written opinions with results favoring the insurers. Despite the slate of wins for insurers in this round of cases, these rulings are limited to cases where policyholders either did not allege the presence of COVID-19 on their premises causing “physical alteration” of the property itself, or had a virus exclusion in their policy, or both. This leaves room for future cases potentially ruling in favor of coverage where the insureds allege the presence of coronavirus on the premises, and that there was a detrimental physical alteration of the property as a result. To date, the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on such a situation. RULING 1: Mudpie v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Co. of America The Ninth Circuit first considered a proposed class action brought by a children’s store operator, Mudpie. Mudpie sought business income and extra expense coverage from Travelers after California and local authorities issued shutdown orders impacting Mudpie’s operations due to COVID-19. (Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Case No. 20-16858, --- F.4th --- (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021).) Travelers denied coverage, asserting that the claim did not involve “direct physical loss of or damage to” property “caused by or resulting from a covered Cause of Loss.” Travelers also denied coverage under language excluding “loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus…that induces…physical distress, illness or disease.” Applying California law, the trial court agreed with Travelers on both accounts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rondi J. Walsh, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Walsh may be contacted at rondi.walsh@ndlf.com

New Case Law Alert: Licensed General Contractors Cannot Sue Owners to Recover Funds for Work Performed by An Unlicensed Subcontractor

May 30, 2022 — Michele A. Ellison & Samantha R. Riggen - Gibbs Giden
The opinion in Kim v. TWA Construction, Inc. (2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 412) issued by the Court of Appeal of California Sixth Appellate District, on May 13, 2022, makes it clear that a properly licensed general contractor cannot bring an action for compensation from an owner for work performed by an unlicensed subcontractor. California licensing law has long made explicit that an unlicensed contractor cannot bring or maintain any action to collect or recover compensation for work that contractor performed unless they were duly licensed at all times during the performance of that work. This new ruling extends the scope of this restriction to licensed contractors who hired unlicensed subcontractors. The Underlying Dispute The case involved a dispute between property owners and their former general contractor and its principal (collectively “TWA”). The property owners hired TWA to construct a home, and during the early stages of the project, TWA hired an unlicensed subcontractor to perform tree trimming services and to remove a large eucalyptus tree. The subcontractor partially removed the eucalyptus tree, but was stopped by a neighbor, and it was discovered that the tree was partly located on the neighbor’s property. The neighbor brought suit against the property owners, and eventually TWA, for the damage. The property owners subsequently filed a cross-complaint against TWA, and TWA in turn filed a cross-complaint against the property owners. Reprinted courtesy of Michele A. Ellison, Gibbs Giden and Samantha R. Riggen, Gibbs Giden Ms. Ellison may be contacted at mellison@gibbsgiden.com Ms. Riggen may be contacted at sriggen@gibbsgiden.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Conflicting Exclusions Result in Duty to Defend

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that the insurer had a duty to defend in light of conflicting endorsements in the policy. Panfil v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14621 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015). JRJ Ada, LLC was a contractor. JRJ's two members, Joe Panfil and Renee Michelon, had a CGL policy with Nautilus. The employee of JRJ's subcontractor, Astro Insulation, fell through a hole while performing insulation work, injuring himself. The employee sued JRJ, who sought a defense from Nautilus. Nautilus refused to defend because JRJ was not an insured under the policy. Further, Nautilus relied upon the policy's Contractor-Subcontrated Work Endorsement and Employee Exclusion to deny coverage. Panfil and Michelon sued Nautilus. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and the court granted plaitniffs' motion while denying Nautilus' motion. The district court first found that the policy should be reformed to inlcude JRJ as an insured. Nautilus did not appeal this determination. The court also found that Nautilus breached its duty to defend and was therefore estopped from asserting policy defenses to coverage. 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

"Ongoing Storm" Rules for the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York & Rhode Island)

February 22, 2021 — Angeline Ioannou, Kenneth Walton, Colin Hackett, Gregory Katz & Lauren Motola-Davis - Lewis Brisbois
The winter storm that recently brought several feet of snow to the Northeast signaled that we are, indeed, in the middle of winter. Moreover, our nation’s favorite groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, saw his shadow on Groundhog Day this year, indicating that winter will be with us for six more weeks. As we move through the remainder of this snowy season, it is important for businesses to understand their legal obligations concerning snow removal and the defenses that are available to them in the event that an injury occurs on their premises. This alert summarizes the ongoing storm rules in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, and analyzes property owners’ snow removal responsibilities as well as related premises liability issues under these states’ laws. Connecticut It is well settled in Connecticut that, in the absence of unusual circumstances, in fulfilling their duty to invitees on their property, property owners may wait a reasonable time after the conclusion of a storm to perform ice and snow removal from outside walkways and steps. Kraus v. Newton, 211 Conn. 191, 197-198 (1989). A property owner’s duty to perform reasonable snow and ice removal of outside walkways does not arise until after a reasonable period of time has passed after a storm ends. Umsteadt v. G.R. Realty, 123 Conn. App. 73, 83 (2010). The ongoing storm doctrine does not apply, however, if the defective condition arises from preexisting ice or snow, and not from the ongoing storm. Whether the alleged defective condition was caused by preexisting ice or snow and whether a storm has concluded are both questions of fact that may be decided by a jury. Kraus at 197-198. Reprinted courtesy of Angeline Ioannou, Lewis Brisbois, Kenneth Walton, Lewis Brisbois, Colin Hackett, Lewis Brisbois, Gregory Katz, Lewis Brisbois and Lauren Motola-Davis, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Ioannou may be contacted at Angeline.Ioannou@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Walton may be contacted at Ken.Walton@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Hackett may be contacted at Colin.Hackett@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Katz may be contacted at Greg.Katz@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Motola-Davis may be contacted at Lauren.MotolaDavis@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers Lists

October 28, 2024 — Linda Carter - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that Tim Capowski was selected to the 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers list, and Christopher Theobalt and Sofya Uvaydov were selected to the 2024 NY Metro Rising Stars list. All three attorneys were recognized in the Appellate practice area. Tim Capowski is a partner at Kahana Feld and chair of the firm’s National Appellate Litigation & Consulting Group. He has spent the better part of three decades at the forefront of the insurance defense bar. Tim has litigated hundreds of appeals and thousands of motions in state and federal and appellate courts throughout New York and around the country. He handles a variety of complex litigation including catastrophic property and casualty claims, construction defect, professional liability, labor and employment law, mass torts, insurance coverage, and more. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

January 07, 2015 — William J. Taylor and Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLP
In Scungio Borst Assocs. v. 410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLC, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that an individual principal/shareholder of a property owner could not be held personally liable as an “agent of the owner” for unpaid invoices, penalties, and attorneys fees under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, even though the property owner itself had failed to make payments allegedly due under a construction contract. CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is designed to protect contractors and subcontractors from nonpayment and which, to that end, establishes rules and deadlines for payment under construction contracts between property owners, contractors, and subcontractors. An owner or contractor who does not adhere to the Act’s payment requirements is subject to the imposition of interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees. In this recent case, the property owner, a limited liability company, had retained the plaintiff contractor to perform construction services on a condominium project. Upon completion of the work, the contractor was not paid approximately $1.5 million that it was owed under the contract. The contractor filed suit under CASPA to obtain the payment it was owed plus interest, penalties and fees, and named both the property owner and its individual principal as defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment to the individual principal on all claims asserted against him, and the contractor appealed, arguing that CASPA allows for claims against both a property owner and its principal when the principal is an “agent of the owner acting with the owner’s authority.” Reprinted courtesy of Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP and William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

July 28, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have spoken often regarding the need for a well written construction contract that sets out the “terms of engagement” for your construction project. A written construction contract sets expectations and allows the parties to the contract to determine the “law” of their project. An unwritten “gentleman’s agreement” can lead to confusion, faulty memories, and more money paid to construction counsel than you would like as we lawyers play around in the grey areas. One other area where the written versus unwritten distinction makes a difference is in the calculation of the statute of limitations. In Virginia, a 5 year statute of limitations applies to written contracts while a 3 year statute of limitations applies to unwritten contracts. This distinction came into stark relief in the case of M&C Hauling & Constr. Inc. v. Wilbur Hale in the Fairfax, Virginia Circuit Court. In M&C Hauling, M&C provided hauling services to the defendant through a subcontract with Hauling Unlimited in 2014, the last of which was in July. M&C provided over 2000 hours of hauling and provided time tickets (that were passed to Mr. Hale on Hauling Unlimited letterhead and signed by Mr. Hale or his agent) and an invoice stating the price term of $75.00 per hour. No separate written contract between M&C and Hauling Unlimited or Mr. Hale existed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Contractors Set to Implement Air Quality Upgrades for Healthier Buildings

April 12, 2021 — Nate Echtenkamp - Construction Executive
As people spend more time in offices, stores and other buildings, and colder weather forces many outdoor activities to be held indoors during the COVID-19 pandemic, construction contractors are increasingly being asked by building owners and operators to provide various mitigation strategies to improve indoor air quality to help occupants avoid being exposed to lingering airborne viral particles. Lowering the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens in enclosed public spaces is of the utmost importance nowadays given that Americans, on average, spend nearly 90% of their time indoors, according to the EPA. It’s fairly common knowledge that the best way to avoid infection is to follow guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that include:

wearing masks or other face coverings;
frequent hand-washing;
physical distancing of at least six feet; and
deep-cleaning procedures.

Reprinted courtesy of Nate Echtenkamp, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES