SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Proposed Legislation for Losses from COVID-19 and Limitations on the Retroactive Impairment of Contracts

July 27, 2020 — Shaia Araghi - Newmeyer Dillion
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused most businesses to temporarily close and, as a result, sustain significant losses. Various states are contemplating the passage of legislation to require carriers to cover claims arising from COVID-19, but case law regarding the constitutionality of such legislation is conflicting. Depending on the facts surrounding retroactive legislation, states may be able to pass an enforceable law leading to coverage. Pennsylvania’s Proposed Legislation for Business Interruption Losses Pennsylvania is one of many states that has proposed legislation to override language in business interruption policies and require coverage from insurance carriers. Pennsylvania House Bill 2372 proposes that any insurance policy that covers loss or property damage, including loss of use and business interruption, must cover the policyholder’s losses from the COVID-19 pandemic.1 It applies to insureds with fewer than 100 employees.2 To enhance its chances to pass constitutional challenges, the House Bill also provides for potential relief and reimbursement through the state’s commissioner.3 Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1127 is broader than House Bill 2372 and most bills proposed in other states and would require indemnification for nearly all insureds.4 The Senate Bill makes important legislative findings and notes that insurance is a regulated industry.5 It essentially provides that an insurance policy insuring against a loss relating to property damage, including business interruption, shall be construed to cover loss or property damage due to COVID-19 or due to a civil authority order resulting from COVID-19.1 The proposed bill redefines “property damage” to include: (1) the presence of a person positively identified as having been infected with COVID-19; (2) the presence of at least one person positively identified as having been infected with COVID-19 in the same municipality where the property is located; or (3) the presence of COVID-19 having otherwise been detected in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shaia Araghi, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Araghi may be contacted at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington and Associate Kevin Sullivan Win Summary Judgment Dismissing Homeowner’s Claim that Presented an Issue of First Impression in New Jersey

December 02, 2019 — Gregory S. Pennington & Kevin Sullivan - Traub Lieberman
On July 12, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP’s Gregory S. Pennington and Kevin Sullivan secured summary judgment dismissing a homeowner’s claim for damaged flooring. The claim at issue arose from the homeowners’ attempt to discard their refrigerator. In the process of removing the refrigerator, the homeowners scratched their kitchen and dining room floors. The homeowners made a claim under their homeowners policy for the cost to repair and replace the damaged flooring. Their homeowners’ insurer denied their claim based on a policy exclusion barring coverage for damage consisting of or caused by marring and scratching. When their insurer denied coverage, the homeowners filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division in Bergen County. The case presented the issue of first impression in New Jersey of whether a homeowner’s self-inflicted, but accidental damaging of its own floors was barred by the homeowner’s policy’s marring or scratching exclusion. Greg and Kevin successfully argued that the exclusion applied to bar coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline

June 07, 2021 — J. Kyle Janecek - Newmeyer Dillion
Recently, ransomware has taken to the forefront in national news. The most prevalent ransomware attack, the one perpetrated against Colonial Pipeline by the now-defunct "Dark Side" hackers, has served to remind businesses about the risks of ransomware. What happened to Colonial Pipeline? What should businesses do to learn from Colonial Pipeline's response? What should a business avoid? What happened to Colonial Pipeline? Colonial Pipeline, a Georgia based operator of fuel pipelines, had its billing software compromised by Dark Side's ransomware attack.1 Following this, Colonial Pipeline took proactive measures to (1) shut down their systems; (2) evaluate the issue; and (3) safely brought systems back on line after ensuring that they were not compromised. Following this, Colonial Pipeline did eventually pay the 4.4 million dollar ransom demand from Dark Side. What it got in return was a decryption key, as promised, which ended up being slower than Colonial Pipeline's own backups.2 The ultimate result of this event being an initial cost of $4.4 million, in addition to lost profits, additional security costs, reputational costs, and litigation costs as consumers had filed a class-action lawsuit to hold Colonial Pipeline accountable for their perceived lapse in security.3 Further, the fall-out from Colonial Pipeline had prompted additional cybersecurity efforts and changes by the Biden administration, including proposed regulations requiring pipeline companies to inform the Department of Homeland Security of cybersecurity incidents within 12 hours, in addition to keeping a cybersecurity coordinator on staff at all times, and reviews of current security measures. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com

---

Mediation v. Arbitration, Both Private Dispute Resolution but Very Different Sorts

January 24, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I often get calls from clients, potential construction clients, and other construction and business professionals with questions about arbitration or mediation clauses in the contracts that they are reviewing or drafting. When I get these calls, it often becomes clear that, understandably, there is some confusion as to what each of these alternate dispute resolution processes entails. I thought I’d put together a quick primer on what each is and their differences. 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

---

Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Permission for CityCenter to demolish Harmon Tower over claims of dangerous construction defects have been withdrawn by the judge in the case after the building’s insurer said it needed more time to investigate. After they were granted permission to demolish the building on August 23, CityCenter filed a claim of total loss with their insurer FM Global on August 27. Now FM Global is saying that they need to further inspect the building. Meanwhile, a demolition contractor has already gained approval to start removing the exterior glass. And things stand, it looks as if that won’t be happening on the planned date of December 2. CityCenter contends that FM Global has already done their inspections, describing FM Global’s prior actions as “the most extensive investigation of anyone,” according to Mark Ferrario, an attorney for CityCenter. Also, the initial plan to implode the building has been rejected. Should demolition proceed, the building will be dismantled floor by floor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

May 06, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s one of the most quoted phrases in legal history: “Shouting fire in a [crowded] theater.” It comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1919 decision in Schenck v. U.S. and has come to stand for the proposition that not all speech, in particular dangerous speech, is protected by the First Amendment. The next case also involves a false alarm. But not of the First Amendment kind. In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Case No. B281411 (March 8, 2019), a false alarm investigated by maintenance engineering staff led to a Privette Doctrine claim against a property owner when a ladder on which the maintenance staff was standing slipped on wet flooring. Johnson v. Raytheon Lawrence Johnson worked as a maintenance engineer for ABM Facilities Services, Inc. ABM was hired by Raytheon Company, Inc. to staff the control room at one of Raytheon’s facilities in Southern California. Among other things, control room staff monitored water cooling towers owned by Raytheon to ensure that the water in the cooling towers were maintained at minimum levels. 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

---

Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

October 02, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that the “life-threatening health and custody status of disbarred Las Vegas attorney Barry Levinson remained uncertain Thursday after a judge refused to reconsider his harsh prison sentence.” Levinson had been convicted of defrauding homeowners associations. Brent Bryson, Levinson’s attorney, claims that the stress of custody issues has caused health problems for his client, reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Bryan stated that “Levinson had heart failure while in federal custody and needs either a special heart valve operation in Southern California or a heart transplant to survive.” District Judge Michael Villani suggested that Bryson should file a civil suit for the matter. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

June 22, 2016 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
We have previously reported on the Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes case, in which the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a provision in an association's declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which required declarant consent before an arbitration provision could be amended out of the document. To read the past articles on the case, please review Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals' Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases and The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals. Today, the Colorado Supreme Court granted the association's petition for writ of certiorari, en banc, on the following reframed issues:

Whether the court of appeals erred by holding as a matter of first impression that Colorado’s Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) permits a developer-declarant to reserve the power to veto unit owner votes to amend common interest community declarations.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McClain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McClain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---