SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

February 01, 2023 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that two Partners from the Chicago, IL office have been selected to the 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers list. In addition, two Partners have been named to the 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers

• Brian Bassett – Insurance Coverage
• Dana Rice – Insurance Coverage

2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars

• Jessica Kull – Civil Litigation: Defense
• Jeremy Macklin – Insurance Coverage

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

---

Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

August 11, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Alaska Supreme Court found that in the case of Khalsa v. Chose, Ms. Khalsa? failure to cooperate with the courts has obligated them to dismiss her claims against Mr. Chose. Ms. Khalsa bought a home kit from Mandala Custom Homes of Nelson, British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Chose, one of the owners of Mandala was paid by Ms. Khalsa to supervise assembly in Fairbanks. After construction, the roof developed leaks. Ms. Khalsa stated that when climbing a ladder to inspect a skylight leak, she fell and injured herself.



During the subsequent suit, Khalsa proved uncooperative. She skipped a pretrial conference. She attended a hearing that set discovery deadlines but then did not comply with discovery, including her failure to provide medical records documenting her injuries. She eventually said that she would only be able to travel from Arizona to Alaska if the defendants paid for her and her caretaker?s expenses.



When finally deposed, Khalsa terminated the deposition after five minutes, alleging the deposition was “intentionally designed to cause [her] to endure further emotional distress, due to the psychological trauma . . . that was caused or contributed to by the defendants.”



Eventually, the lower court sanctioned her twice. In July, 2008, the court concluded that her failure to provide medical records required dismissal of her injury lawsuit. In October of that year, the court dismissed all remaining claims due to her “pattern of excuses and long delays in providing information for discovery culminating in her refusal to participate in her deposition by the defendants.” Further, Khalsa has argued that the trial court displayed “prejudice and bias toward the pro se plaintiff.”



The Alaska Supreme Court rejected all of Ms. Khalsa?s claims, dismissing her case. They did, however, note that she has thirty days to file an appeal.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Big Builder, Meritage entered Atlanta through its acquisition of Legendary Communities for $130 million, “completing a two-year quest.” “Probably for about two years, we’ve been looking in the market, talking to builders, and studying the geography, and meeting different people to learn who the players are and learn about the area,” Meritage Homes chairman and CEO Steven J. Hilton told Big Builder. This acquisition makes Meritage Homes “the number one builder in the Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, S.C. market, owning more than 16 percent of the 2013 market share with 266 closings, according to Metrostudy data. It also owns almost seven percent of the market share in nearby Spartanburg, S.C. with 44 closings.” Legendary fits “in very nicely with what we do at Meritage,” Hilton said to Big Builder. “We’re a strong first and second move up builder, as are they at Legendary. It’s a very complementary fit between the two companies.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

October 10, 2022 — Kerianne Kane Luckett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Can an indemnification clause in a commercial lease obligate a tenant’s insurer to defend a landlord? Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York said, “Yes!” On August 9, 2022, the district court issued a decision in ConMed Corp. vs. Federal Insurance Company, holding that the indemnification clause in a policyholder’s lease triggered the insurer’s duty to defend the landlord in an action arising out of the tenant’s negligence. Facts of the Case ConMed is a medical technology company that leases warehouse space in Georgia from Breit Industrial Canyon (“the Landlord”) to sterilize its medical equipment. ConMed’s employees filed suit against ConMed and a contractor that performed the sterilization, alleging injuries caused by exposure to excessive amounts of chemicals used in the sterilization process (the “ConMed Action”). Thereafter, ConMed’s employees filed a separate lawsuit against the Landlord, alleging that the Landlord permitted storage of unsafe levels of the chemicals at the warehouse without adequate ventilation (the “Landlord Action”). The lease agreement required ConMed to indemnify the Landlord “except in the event of, and to the extent of, Landlord’s negligence or willful misconduct.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne Kane Luckett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Luckett may be contacted at KKane@sdvlaw.com

---

Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results

October 21, 2019 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Louisiana court recently denied an excess insurer’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the insurer’s interpretation of a pollution exclusion would lead to “absurd results.” Central Crude, Inc., a crude oil transporter company, experienced an oil pipeline leak, allegedly causing damage to property belonging to Columbia Gas Transmission Company. Columbia Gas sued Central Crude seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to compel remediation of the site. Central Crude sought coverage under a CGL primary insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. The insurer initially agreed to cover Central Crude’s “reasonable and necessary costs” relating to the incident, but later refused to defend or indemnify Central Crude for any costs incurred from the incident. As a result, Central Crude brought suit against Liberty Mutual and its excess insurer, Great American, to enforce coverage. Great American moved for summary judgment arguing coverage was excluded by the excess policy’s pollution exclusion, which precludes coverage for injury “arising out of a discharge of pollutants.” Central Crude responded arguing that the exclusion’s applicability was invalidated or at least rendered ambiguous by the Following Form Endorsements, which reflect an intent to mirror the coverage afforded under the primary Liberty Mutual policy, and because coverage appears to be specifically authorized through the Premises Operations Liability Endorsement. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

January 02, 2024 — Susana Arce - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
A majority of insurance policies require the insured to cooperate with the insurer. The cooperation clause generally states, “the insured agrees to Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the suit.” The “cooperation clause” is often an afterthought because once litigation has ensued an insured is focused on other important considerations. However, insureds should not forget that complying with the cooperation clause can make the difference between the insurer covering or denying a claim. The Cooperation Clause in Action The Court in HDI Glob. Specialty SE v. PF Holdings, LLC,1 highlighted the importance of cooperating with an insurance carrier. In the underlying litigation, residents of an apartment complex sued four entities, all insured by the same insurance policy: two were named insureds and two were additional insureds. The primary insurer provided a defense for the named insureds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Arce may be contacted at SArce@sdvlaw.com

---

No Signature, No Problem: Texas Court Holds Contractual Subrogation Waiver Still Enforceable

April 10, 2023 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Chubb Lloyds Inc. Co. of Tex. v. Buster & Cogdell Builders, LLC, No. 01-21-00503-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 676, the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (Court of Appeals) considered whether the lower court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s subrogation case by enforcing a subrogation waiver in a construction contract which was not fully executed. The contract was signed by only one of the two subrogors and was not signed by the defendant general contractor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that despite the lack of signatures, the evidence established mutual assent to the contractual terms by all parties. The plaintiff’s subrogors, Jeffrey and Mary Meyer (collectively, the Meyers), retained defendant Buster & Codgell Builders (BCB) to expand their residence. BCB drafted a contract using the American Institute of Architects (AIA) standard form contract for residential construction. The AIA contract included, by reference, a subrogation waiver that applied to BCB and its subcontractors. Prior to beginning the work, BCB emailed Jeffrey Meyer a version of the contract that only had one signature block for both Jeffrey and Mary Meyer. Minutes later, BCB sent a second version of the contract which had a signature line for each of the Meyers. However, Jeffrey Meyer signed the first version of the contract and emailed it back to BCB. In the subject line of his email, Mr. Meyers asked that BCB countersign and return the contract. BCB did not sign and return the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Factual Issues Prevent Summary Judgment Determination on Coverage for Additional Insured

May 01, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Numerous factual issues prevented the court from deciding at the summary judgment stage whether the additional insured was covered for a personal injury claim that happened on a construction site. Paynes Cranes v. Am States Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40485 (E.D. N.Y. March 26, 2014). Intermetal Fabricators, Inc. hired Paynes to provide a crane and driver for the construction of a store. A construction worker was injured while working with the crane. The injured worker sued several defendants, including Paynes. Intermetal had coverage for the project that included additional insureds. The policy provided, “Any person or organization . . . for whom you [Intermetal] are required by written contract, agreement or permit to provide insurance is an insured, subject to the following additional provisions: a. The contract, agreement or permit must be in effect during the policy period . . . and must have been executed prior to the ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage,’ 'person and advertising injury.’” 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

---