Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has upheld the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in Claredon American Insurance Company v. Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. This case was triggered by a water intrusion problem at a condominium complex, the Terraces at Emerystation, built and sold by Wareham Development Corporation. The insurer, Claredon, retained Risk Enterprise Management as the third party claims administrator. REM retained the law firm Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. The construction defect case was settled in 2007 and the condo owners moved back by early 2008.

Due to issues with the claims settlement, Claredon filed against REM for “professional negligence, indemnity, apportionment and contribution,” with a cross-complaint that the cross-defendants negligently defended the developer, Wareham.

In response, the cross-defendants filed a motion to strike the cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied this motion and now this has been upheld by the appeals court.

The court noted that “The fundamental thrust of the cross-complaint is not protected litigation-related speech and petitioning activity undertaken on another’s behalf in a judicial proceeding.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

October 26, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers. The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”). After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

December 07, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Casey L. Coffey - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On November 10, 2020, a New York federal judge dismissed an insurer’s counterclaims seeking to cap its exposure under a $15 million sublimit and an order estopping the policyholder from pursuing any additional amounts. In February 2017, Plaintiff Pilkington North America, Inc. (Pilkington), suffered between $60 and $100 million in damage from a tornado that struck its glass manufacturing factory in Illinois. Pilkington sought coverage for its loss under a commercial property and business interruption policy issued by Defendant Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (MSI). Pilkington also claimed its insurance broker, Aon Risk Services Central, Inc. (Aon), is liable for faulty advice provided while brokering the policy. Aon’s negligence allegedly gave way to MSI’s fraudulent revision of the insurance policy, which caused the losses from the tornado to not be fully compensable. Pilkington’s fraud and faulty brokering claims stem from MSI’s revision of an endorsement contained in the policy. The revision changed the wording of a windstorm sublimit. Allegedly, Aon was informed by MSI of the changes and failed to inform Pilkington that the revision would substantially reduce coverage for windstorms, including tornados. 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

Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016–-Federalizing Trade Secret Law

October 07, 2016 — Erin M. Stines and Reed Cahill - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
The Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016 (DTSA) was signed into law on May 11, 2016, and became effective immediately. The DTSA allows an owner of a trade secret to sue in federal court for trade secret misappropriation. Previously, only state law governed civil misappropriation of trade secrets. While the DTSA largely mirrors the current state of the law under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), adopted by 48 states, including Washington,[1] there are some additions found in the new law. The DTSA imposes the same three-year statute of limitations and authorizes remedies similar to those provided under the UTSA. The DTSA also offers new forms of relief, including a provision permitting ex parte seizure orders (that is, without a hearing or response from the opposing party) to prevent further misappropriation of the trade secret. The DTSA further provides for a new definition of trade secret. The UTSA's definition of a trade secret is a “formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process.” Under the DTSA, the definition of a “trade secret” is broadened to include “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information...whether tangible or intangible...” [2] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Erin M. Stines & Reed Cahill, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Stines may be contacted at erin.stines@ac-lawyers.com

Mississippi Sues Over Public Health Lab Defects

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The state of Mississippi “is suing architects and designers of a new Public Health Lab, saying the $28 million lab wasn't up to containing deadly diseases, biohazards and chemicals,” reported The Clarion-Ledger. Dale Partners Architects, Earl Walls Associates, Eldridge and Associates, and Environmental Management Plus have been named as defendants. "The estimated damages are $3 million," attorney Dorsey Carson told The Clarion-Ledger. "This building is where they test tuberculosis, or where they would test anthrax or any other (biohazards). You don't have a choice – it has to meet rigorous standards." Charlie Alexander, a partner with Dale Partners, stated that “any allegations of design defects by his company and its team ‘are unfounded,’” reported The Clarion-Ledger. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Texas Supreme Court Holds Stipulated Extrinsic Evidence May Be Considered in Determining Duty to Defend

May 10, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Responding to certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court held that in limited circumstances, extrinsic evidence may be considered in determining the duty to defend. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp., 2022 Tex. LEXIS 148 (Tex. Feb. 11, 2022). The two insurers each provided CGL coverage to the insured, 5D Drilling & Pump Service, Inc., at different times. BIitco provided two consecutive one-year CGL policies covering October 2013 to October 2015. Monroe's CGL policy covered 5D from October 2015 to October 2016. 5D was sued by David Jones for breach of contract and negligence, seeking damage allegedly resulting from 5D's drilling operations on Jones's property. Jones contracted with 5D in the summer of 2014 to drill a 3600-foot irrigation well on his farmland. The complaint did not detail when 5D's purportedly negligent acts occurred or even when 5D began or stopped the work. 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

Walmart Seeks Silicon Valley Vibe for New Arkansas Headquarters

June 18, 2019 — Matthew Boyle - Bloomberg
Walmart Inc. took inspiration from McDonald’s Corp., Apple Inc. and locations like Stanford University when designing the new headquarters that will start taking shape this summer. The 350-acre campus will be located just a few blocks east of Walmart’s current home, a patchwork of more than 20 buildings in Bentonville, Arkansas. It will feature bike paths, food trucks and outdoor meeting areas -- part of an effort to lure younger, digitally-savvy workers to northwestern Arkansas. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Boyle, Bloomberg

Baltimore Bridge Collapse Occurred After Ship Lost Power Multiple Times

May 28, 2024 — Allyson Versprille - Bloomberg
The container ship that rammed into Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge in March lost power multiple times on both the day of the fatal accident and the day before, according to a preliminary report. The Dali, which sails under the flag of Singapore, lost power twice on March 26 before hitting the bridge and causing it to collapse, killing six construction workers who were on the structure at the time. The first blackout was caused when electrical breakers powering most of the vessel’s equipment and lighting unexpectedly tripped, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a report Tuesday. The crew eventually was able to restore electrical power, but then a second blackout occurred only 0.2 miles from the bridge. They regained power, but the ship lacked the propulsion needed to avoid striking the bridge, safety inspectors found. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Allyson Versprille, Bloomberg

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES