Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected for the 2024 Edition of Best Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch
September 11, 2023 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPBest Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch – 2024 Edition
Best Lawyers 2024 Edition
- Bruce Cleeland
- Peter Dubrawski
- Denis Moriarty
- Theodore Penny
Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2024 Edition
- Frances Brower
- Kyle DiNicola
- Kristian Moriarty
- Arezoo Jamshidi
- Josh Maltzer
- Philip McDermott
- Patrick McIntyre
- Annette Mijanovic
- Kathleen Moriarty
- Bethsaida Obra-White
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home
September 24, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Louisiana couple is suing over the home they bought, claiming that the sellers knew there were defects in the home, including termite damage, mold, and roof leaks. When the Eastmans bought the home, they were assured that inspectors had cleared the property.
The home had been foreclosed upon and purchased by Beverly Knoll, LLC. The Eastmans subsequently purchased the home from Beverly Knoll. After the sale, the plaintiffs hired their own inspector who found the damage and no evidence of attempts at repair.
The Eastmans informed one of the defendants, Troy Duhon, who informed them that the defendants would be assuming the costs of repair. However, after the Eastmans requested $94,000 in reimbursements, the defendants declined to pay.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court of Appeals Issues Decision Regarding Second-Tier Subcontractors and Pre-Lien Notice
February 06, 2023 —
Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & SleightVelazquez Framing, LLC (“Velazquez”) v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (“Cascadia”) is a Court of Appeals, Division 2 case where the primary issue on appeal was whether a second tier subcontractor was required to provide pre-lien notice under RCW 60.04 for its labor.
The defendant, Cascadia, was the general contractor that planned to build a home on property it owned in Lakewood, Washington.[1] High End Construction, LLC (“High End”), submitted a bid to Cascadia for framing work on the home. High End began work on Cascadia’s home, but later subcontracted with Velazquez to complete the framing work.[2] Velazquez did not submit a prelien notice for its work on Cascadia’s home, and Cascadia claimed it was unaware that High End subcontracted with Velazquez for framing at the project.
High End invoiced Cascadia and was paid for its work, but High End never paid Velazquez. Subsequently, Velazquez recorded a lien for both labor and materials, and later filed a complaint to foreclose its lien. Cascadia, due to the fact Velazquez did not provide it with prelien notice, moved for summary judgment, arguing prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.031(1)[3] and the labor portion of a lien cannot be segregated where a subcontractor’s lien includes both labor and materials. Velazquez argued that no prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.021[4] and RCW 60.04.031 and claimed that subcontractors can segregate the labor portion from the materials portion. The trial court granted Cascadia’s motion and ruled Velazquez did not fall within one of the exceptions for prelien notice in RCW 60.04.031(2), and therefore, could not enforce the lien. Velazquez appealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Colburn may be contacted at
travis.colburn@acslawyers.com
Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials
August 20, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court approved the insurer's endorsement which stated the insured would not pay for undamaged property in order to match damaged property. Noonan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15545 (May 24, 2019).
After hail and wind damaged part of the roof in the insureds' home, American Family inspected the roof and determined that it had suffered $12,000 in damage. The insureds disputed this amount and demanded an appraisal to provide a binding estimate of the amount of loss. American Family asked the appraisers to divide their estimate into two categories - one for replacing damaged shingles and another for replacing undamaged shingles that would not match those needed to replace the damaged ones. The appraisers did not do so. They instead found that replacing the entire roof would cost $141,000 and noted there was a matching issue because alternative products did not match the current shingles on the roof.
Of the $141,000 needed to replace the entire roof, American Family estimated that $87,232.98 was due to the costs of matching. The insureds sued. The district court remanded the case to the appraisers to clarify the award by differentiating the costs attributable to the actual roof damage from those attributable to shingle matching. The appraisers clarified the award and reported that actual damages were $66,619, meaning that $74,381 was attributable to matching. American Family then paid the actual damages, less the deductible, but refused to pay the rest.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology
May 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDon MacGregor, Project Manager and General Contractor with Bert L. Howe & Associates, will be joining Brian Kahn, Esq. of Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger, Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. of Kiesel Law, Hon. Peter Lichtmen (ret), Hon. Nancy Wieben Stock (ret), and Peter S. Curry of Curry Stenger Engineering as a panelist in the break-out session Working Smarter With Technology at the 2014 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar being held May 15th and 16th at the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California.
With a strong focus on the topic of this year’s seminar, Back to Business . . . Working Smarter, Not Harder, the panel will discuss ways that technology can assist our industry in working more efficiently, saving money and providing a better product. Conversely, the panel will also acknowledge the limitations of technology and areas where the use of advanced technology may not be appropriate.
The information provided will be of benefit to the construction defect litigator but equally valuable to other types of complex litigation. Accordingly, this panel will appeal to those whose scope of work goes beyond the bounds of construction defect. A brief outline of topics that will be addressed by each panelist include remote virtual appearance and deposition attendances, document management software, how to create, manage and edit documents using remote technology, technological tools that allow for easier communications, transfer of information and flexibility, expert technology, and technology in mediation and trial.
The panel discussion will go beyond past seminar discussions in that they will discuss and demonstrate tools that are just coming into use now as well as new tools which are being released prior to the seminar.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
PFAS: From Happy Mistake to Ubiquity to Toxic Liability (But is there coverage?)
March 14, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Andrews KurthIn 1938, a DuPont chemist’s experiment yielded not—as he first thought—a lumpen, waxy mistake, but a new chemical with remarkable properties: heat-resistance, chemical stability, and low surface friction. Decades of continuing experimentation yielded a class of chemicals with the capacity to make non-stick, water-resistant coatings. In time, these chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), would become a major component in thousands of consumer goods: food packaging, non-stick cookware, waterproof clothing, paint, stain-resistant carpets and furniture, and firefighting foams. The discovery of the toxicity of these remarkable chemicals lagged behind the widespread adoption, but eventually yielded a moniker that reflected PFAS’s stability and longevity: “Forever Chemicals.”
In October 2021, the Biden administration announced
a plan to address, among other concerns, PFAS’s migration to drinking water sources. EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan debuted the plan in Raleigh, North Carolina alongside Governor Roy Cooper.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace
February 22, 2021 —
Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & FearsOn January 29, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued new employer guidance on mitigating and preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. This guidance is intended to help employers and workers outside the healthcare setting to identify risks of being exposed to and of contracting COVID-19 and to determine any appropriate control measures to implement. While this guidance is largely duplicative of prior OSHA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance and recommendations, it contains a few new and updated recommendations that employers should note:
Face Coverings
OSHA recognizes that face coverings, either cloth face coverings or surgical masks, are simple barriers that help prevent the spread of COVID-19, and are beneficial for the wearer as well as others. OSHA recommends that employers should provide all workers with face coverings, unless their work task requires a respirator. These face coverings should be provided at no cost and should be made of at least two layers of tightly woven breathable fabric, and should not have exhalation valves or vents. Employers should also require any other individuals at the workplace (i.e., visitors, customers, non-employees) to wear a face covering unless they are under the age of 2 or are actively consuming food or beverages on site. Wearing a face covering does not eliminate the need for physical distancing of at least six feet apart.
Employers must discuss the possibility of “reasonable accommodations” for any workers who are unable to wear or have difficulty wearing certain types of face coverings due to a disability. In workplaces with employees who are deaf or have hearing deficits, employers should consider acquiring masks with clear coverings over the mouth.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend
November 15, 2021 —
Sarah J. Odia & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsOn Oct. 28, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court in Zurich American Insurance Company v.. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, held that an insured can rely on extrinsic facts to show that an insurer has a duty to defend the insured, as long as the facts were available to the insurer at the time the insured tendered the claim. The court also held that an insured has the burden of proving that an exception to an exclusion in an insurance policy applies to create a duty to defend.
In Zurich, Ironshore refused to defend to its insured against multiple property damage claims arising out of construction defects, claiming that its policies’ continuing and progressive damage exclusions barred coverage. The underlying lawsuits made no specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred. Ironshore claimed that the property damage had occurred due to faulty work that predated the commencement of its policies. Two different federal trial courts came to conflicting conclusions in the underlying cases. One held that Ironshore had a duty to defend because Ironshore failed to show that an exception to the exclusion did not apply. The second granted summary judgment in favor of Ironshore holding that the insured failed to meet its burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applied.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah J. Odia, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
