Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses

May 18, 2020 — Richard W. Brown & Andres Avila - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The draft legislation, entitled the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020 (“PRIA”), would establish a Federal Pandemic Risk Reinsurance Fund and Program (the “Program”), that is intended to provide a system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption (“BI”) losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease. PRIA, in its current draft form, is modeled after and in many ways mirrors the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act that was enacted to address catastrophic losses resulting from acts of terrorism. PRIA effectively mandates that participating insurers provide coverage for any business interruption loss resulting from an outbreak of infectious disease or pandemic that is declared an emergency or major disaster by the President and certified by the Secretary of Treasury (the “Secretary”) as a public health emergency. PRIA would be triggered in the case of certified public health emergencies upon the aggregate industry insured losses exceed $250 million dollars, and include an annual aggregate limit capped at $500 billion dollars. The draft bill provides that the Secretary would administer the Program and pay the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, which would be 95% of losses in excess of an applicable insurer annual deductible, once the Program is triggered. The compensation would benefit those insurers that elect to participate in the Program in exchange for a premium paid by the participating insurer for reinsurance coverage under the Program. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Coverage for Named Windstorm Removed by Insured, Terminating Such Coverage

August 15, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Over a series of policies, the insured had no coverage for named windstorms when it was removed from the policies in return for a reduced premium. Shiloh Christian Ctr. v. Aspen Sec. Ins. Co. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100959 (M. D. Fla. May 9, 2022). Plaintiff had coverage from Aspen from 2014 through at least 2018 under several year-long policies, each of which renewed the prior year's policy. The premium for the 2014-2015 Policy was $50,000. In May 2015, plaintiff asked what the premium would be without hurricane coverage. He was informed this would reduce the premium to $32,000. The insured asked for the change in coverage to eliminate named windstorm coverage and a return premium was issued to the insured for $16,545. The 2016-2017 policy was issued for a premium of $22,500. The policy indicated it was a renewal of the prior policy. The revised quote made clear that the policy would exclude coverage for "Named Windstorm." 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

Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

March 26, 2014 — David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith-Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Purcell v. Schweitzer (No. D063435 - filed February 24, 2014, certified for publication March 17, 2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld an order setting aside a stipulated default judgment for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim which had been agreed to by the parties to a settlement agreement, finding that it constituted an unenforceable penalty because the amount bore no reasonable relationship to the settling party’s actual damages resulting from a breach of the settlement agreement. In an agreement settling a breach of contract action seeking $85,000 in damages based on an unpaid debt, the plaintiff agreed to settle the claim and to accept $38,000 in 24 monthly installments, including interest on the unpaid principal at 8.5 percent. The agreement provided that payments were due on the first day of each month and to be considered “timely,” had to be received by the fifth day of each month. If any payment was not made on time, it was to be considered a breach of the entire settlement agreement, making the entire $85,000 original liability due pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment for such amount. The stipulation included language to the effect that the $85,000 figure accounted for the “economics” of further proceedings. The agreement also specified that the foregoing provision did not constitute an unlawful “penalty” or “forfeiture” and that defendant waived any right to an appeal and any right to contest or seek to set aside such a judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Smith may be contacted at gsmith@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

March 02, 2020 — Kevin Bonsignore - Wilke Fleury
The recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA” or the “Act”) goes into effect on January 1, 2020 and with it comes enhanced consumer protections for California residents against businesses that collect their personal information. Generally speaking, the CCPA requires that businesses provide consumers with information relating to the business’ access to and sharing of personal information. Accordingly, businesses should determine whether the CCPA will apply to them and, if so, what policies and procedures they should implement to comply with this new law. Application of the CCPA Importantly, the CCPA does not apply to all California business. The requirements of the CCPA only apply where a for-profit entity collects Consumers’ Personal Information, does business in the State of California, and satisfies one or more of the following: (1) has annual gross revenues in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000); (2) receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; or (3) derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information. (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(c)(1)(A)-(C).) Thus, as a practical matter, small “mom and pop” operations will likely not be subject to the CCPA, but most mid-size and large companies should review their own books or consult with an accountant to determine whether the CCPA applies to their business. Rights Granted to Consumers “Consumers,” as the term is used in the CCPA, means “any natural person who is a California resident…” (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(g).) This broad definition makes no carve-outs or exclusions for a business’s employees and, despite the traditional definition of the term “consumer,” does not seem to require that the resident purchase any goods or services. This definition seems intentional and was likely designed to prevent businesses from attempting to circumvent the requirements of the CCPA by arguing that the personal information they collect does not belong to “consumers” under the traditional meaning of the word. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Bonsignore, Wilke Fleury
Mr. Bonsignore may be contacted at kbonsignore@wilkefleury.com

Commercial Construction Heating Up

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Motley Fool suggests that commercial construction is the next hot sector. Their analysis is that lag time between a rise in residential construction and commercial construction is just about over. “Industry surveys and construction data are suggestion that commercial construction could be about to turn.” Among the indicators are increased billing by architects for commercial projects. With the exception of December 2012, with a strong slump in residential work, commercial projects lagged below residential projects from June 2012 until June 2013. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Seeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge Collapse

September 16, 2019 — Engineering News-Record
On the surface, it seemed like an outrageous defensive move following a painful tragedy. Louis Berger Group has refused requests from the Dept. of Labor to hand over emails with FIGG Bridge Engineers about its peer review of the ill-fated Florida International University pedestrian bridge. The structure collapsed on March 15, 2018, killing six people and injuring several others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

The Multigenerational Housing Trend

May 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Reuters reported that “[m]ore than 50 million Americans already live in multigenerational situations, according to Pew Research, and the number is expected to grow as baby boomers age.” Lennar Corp has “Next Gen” home models, which provides multigenerational housing for prices similar to traditional homes. For instance, according to Reuters, one of the Next Gen models contains “an 800-square-foot house-within-a-house” with “a separate entrance and its own patio, plus a bedroom, sitting area, and bathroom.” Other home builders are also providing multigenerational housing: “Gertz Fine Homes, which builds between 12-30 houses a year near Portland, Oregon, says about 30 percent of sales are now multigenerational models, which can cost around $600,000.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Pennsylvania township has announced that it has reached a settlement with the architectural firm that designed its administration building. Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying than $1.05 million to settle claims of defects in the design of the building. West Whiteland’s administration building was completed in July 2007. The first leaks were noticed in November and December 2008. In response, the township stopped payments to the contractor, Magnum, Inc. Magnum sued, claiming that their work was not to blame for the leaks. Magnum joined the township in suing the design firm. Although Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying the township to settle the claim, West Whiteland will be paying $75,000 of that back to the firm to settle outstanding bills that had been withheld during litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES