Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Effects of Amendment to Florida's Statute of Repose on the Products Completed Operations Hazard

November 06, 2018 — Richard W. Brown & Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Recent amendments to Florida’s Statute of Repose have resulted in concerns as to the scope of risk Florida homebuilders face as a result, and the availability of insurance coverage for such exposures. Previously, the statute provided for a strict, yet straightforward 10-year limitation for latent construction defect claims. Under that language, issues arose when suits were filed near expiration of the statute, because parties seeking to defend claims were given little time to effectively assert related claims. The amendment to the statute serves to lengthen the statute of repose to 11 years for certain cross-claims, compulsory counterclaims, and third-party claims, and in limited circumstances, potentially even longer. Most policies in the Florida marketplace serve to limit coverage under the products-completed operations hazard (“PCO”) to 10 years, and thus, in very limited circumstances, an insured contractor may be exposed to third-party claims under the revised statute. It is important to note, however, that coverage under most CGL policies is occurrence-based, meaning that the policy is triggered by property damage that occurs during the policy period, and therefore, any subsequent claims permitted under the amended statute will necessarily relate to the original property damage that occurred during the 10-year period, and thus, would be covered under the standard 10-year PCO extension. This paper will analyze the anticipated effect of the amendments upon coverage under a 10-year PCO extension. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C. and Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

December 26, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A liability insurer has two duties that are the crux of a liability policy: the duty to defend the insured in legal actions and the duty to indemnify the insured from losses covered under the policy. Many times, policyholders (insureds) do not fully understand or appreciate these two important duties. They need to and this is why having private counsel assist with coverage-related considerations is an absolute must. An insurers’ duty to defend is separate from its duty to indemnify. A recent opinion out of the Middle District of Florida in Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Tate Transport Corp., 2022 WL 16963815 (M.D.Fla. 2022) clarifies the distinction between these duties with a focus on an insurer’s initial duty — the duty to defend. Please read below so you can have more of an appreciation of these duties. The court does a good job discussing Florida law with the emphasis on when an insurer’s initial duty to defend kicks-in: Duty to Defend Under Florida law, “an insurer’s duty to defend its insured against a legal action arises when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring the suit within policy coverage.” The duty to defend is a broad one, broader than the duty to indemnify, and “[t]he merits of the underlying suit are irrelevant.” We determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured based only on “the eight corners of the complaint and the policy,” and only as the complaint’s alleged facts are “fairly read[.]” The “facts” we consider in evaluating the duty to defend come solely from the complaint, regardless of the actual facts of the case and regardless of any later developed and contradictory factual record. “Any doubts regarding 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

Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

January 21, 2015 — Vinicy Chan – Bloomberg
What do New York’s most famous hotel, the Lloyd’s of London building and the headquarters of the U.K.’s top law firm have in common? They’re all owned by Chinese insurers. This new breed of buyers, who weren’t allowed to invest overseas before 2012, are flooding into the global market for prime commercial real estate after being given more freedom to deploy their $1.6 trillion of assets. That has meant good times for sellers of trophy real estate in major cities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Vinicy Chan, Bloomberg
Ms. Chan may be contacted at vchan91@bloomberg.net

Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

June 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion in limine seeking to dismiss the insureds' complaint due to the absence of expert testimony. Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74069 (E.D. N.Y. May 30, 2014). During the policy period, the insureds noticed their house had serious structural problems, including cracks in the walls and floors that were pitched toward the rear of the house. The insureds had to move from their house. When they submitted a claim, it was denied by Lexington because the losses were caused by "wear and tear, deterioration, earth movement, settlement, shrinking, bulging or expansion of the property leading to cracking of structural components." The insureds sued. Lexington filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the insureds' expert and to dismiss the complaint for inability to offer prima facie proof of a covered loss absent such expert testimony. 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

Insured Survives Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case

May 30, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment in a cases involving collapse was denied. Firehouse Church Ministries v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53959 (D. Miss. March 25, 2022). A roof truss, a framework supporting the roof, collapsed in the church. The cause was either deterioration over time or a nearby tornado. The Church claimed that before the tornado passed, the church was clean and in orderly condition. When inspected after the tornado, there was debris and wreckage, including tin, insulation dust, plaster, and ceiling tile, on the floor. The Church had a contractor, Gregory Blanchard, inspect. He added posts to support the truss and made other repairs, but informed the Church that the damage was worse than expected and it could not be easily repaired. 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

Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

November 26, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Stephens & Stephens XII v. Fireman's Fund Ins. (No. A135938, filed November 24, 2014), the plaintiffs obtained property insurance on a warehouse. Within a month, it was discovered to be stripped of all wiring and metal. Fireman's Fund paid for emergency repairs but nothing more, concerned that the damage had occurred outside the policy period. The policy provided for valuation of either "replacement cost," meaning the expenditure required to replace the damaged property with "new property of comparable material and quality," or "actual cash value," defined as the actual, depreciated value of the damaged property. For replacement cost, Fireman’s Fund was not required to pay "until the lost or damaged property is actually repaired ... as soon as reasonably possible after the loss or damage," and only "[t]he amount [the insured] actually spend[s]...." In the subsequent bad faith lawsuit, the jury awarded the full cost of repair, despite there being no repairs. The appeals court reversed, holding that there was no right to an immediate award for the costs of repairing the damage; however, the court nonetheless held that the insured was entitled to a "conditional judgment," awarding those costs if repairs were actually made. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

February 15, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Well, I’m back and hope to have a more consistent publishing schedule moving forward. I appreciate the continued readership through what has been a busy time for my solo construction practice over the last couple of months. Now, back to our program. . . Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often beaten the drum of a solid contract that leaves as little as possible to chance or the dreaded “grey areas” where we construction lawyers like to make money. An example of the issues that can arise from ambiguity can be found in a case from 2017 in the Western District of Virginia, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill – The Law Officeof Christopher G. Hill, PC

Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

March 04, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As Morrissey of the Smith’s sang: Coyness is nice, but Coyness can stop you, from saying all the things in life you’d like to. It’s not uncommon in litigation to see a complaint asking for “damages according to proof.” Call it laziness. Call it hiding the ball. Call it coy, even. I call it risky. And here’s why: If a defendant doesn’t appear and you need to seek a default judgment against him, her, or it, you are barred from doing so, since you are limited to recovering the amount you sought. And last I checked, something of nothing is nothing. In Yu v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. G054522 (December 11, 2018), one plaintiff found this out the hard way, although perhaps not quite in the way they expected it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES