Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

April 20, 2017 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
In my previous post, I made reference to getting a “Reservation of Rights” letter. I noted that the carrier may decide to defend you under a Reservation of Rights (i.e., hire your lawyer) but may not, necessarily, accept the responsibility for paying the claim. Does this mean that the insurance company has denied your claim, or will never pay? No. Reservation of Rights (ROR) letters are sent for a variety of reasons- most notably, when some portion of the construction lawsuit against you is not covered under your E&O policy. The letter must state the reason(s) that the ROR is being issued. With the ROR, the insurance company is telling you that it reserves the right to withdraw from your defense and/or deny payment of damages at a later date, depending upon how facts in the case develop. The notice is intended to let you know that there *may* be issues later, and to put you notice that you have the right to hire your own lawyer (at your own expense) to protect yourself from that future potential risk. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Chambers USA 2022 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

July 18, 2022 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is once again recognized by Chambers USA as a leading law firm in Pennsylvania for achievements and client service in the areas of insurance law and real estate finance law. The firm has also been recognized for achievements and client service in banking and finance law in Philadelphia and the surrounding area. In addition, seven lawyers received individual honors: two for their work in insurance, two for their work in real estate finance, another for his work in real estate, one for her work in bankruptcy and restructuring and one for his work in commercial litigation. White and Williams is acknowledged for our renowned practice offering expert representation to insurers and reinsurers across an impressive range of areas including coverage, bad faith litigation and excess liability. The firm is recognized for notable strength in transactional and regulatory matters, complemented by the team's adroit handling of complex alternative dispute resolution proceedings. Chambers USA also acknowledged the firm's broad trial capabilities include handling data privacy, professional liability and toxic tort coverage claims. White and Williams’ lawyers have further expertise in substantial claims arising from bodily injury and wrongful death suits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

AB 3018: Amendments to the Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements on California Public Projects

February 18, 2019 — Alex R. Bagdassarian & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & Abramson
What California Contractors Need To Know About AB 3018 California contractors used to face limited consequences for non-compliance with the state’s skilled and trained workforce requirements on public works projects. A sea-change to the statutory landscape went into effect on January 1, 2019 as a result of Assembly Bill No. 3018 (“AB 3018”).1 The Code re-defines what constitutes a skilled/trained workforce by eliminating existing exemptions, strengthens monthly reporting guidelines and agency oversight, and empowers the Labor Commissioner and public agencies with enforcement tools that include monetary penalties and debarment. Contractors who fail to institute a program to comply with AB 3018’s reporting requirements do so at their peril. What Does The 30% Requirement Mean? Previously, in order to comply with the skilled workforce requirements2, 30% of skilled journeypersons had to be graduates of an apprenticeship program, except for certain listed trades which were exempt from the apprenticeship percentage requirement3. AB 3018 eliminates this exception for the listed occupations and requires 30% of all trades to be comprised of apprenticeship program graduates. Reprinted courtesy of Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at Abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oregon Bridge Closed to Inspect for Defects

February 25, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to The Oregonian, the Morrison Bridge in Multnomah county, Oregon will be closed Sunday, February 23rd “so county crews can inspect the decking that has caused problems since it was installed” in 2012. The “southernmost eastbound lane has been closed for weeks while crews conducted inspections.” The defects appeared “almost immediately after the project” was completed, reported The Oregonian. Drivers have “dealt with a bumpy, noisy ride as the loose decking panels flopped beneath them.” Multnomah county has sued “Conway Construction, the company the installed the decking, as well as Strongwell Corp., the company that supplied Conway with the decking materials, and Zellcomp, the company that made the decking materials, to determine who should foot the bill for extensive repairs or outright replacement of the decking.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon

May 01, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Supreme Court found that Lloyd's endorsement imposing a cap on liability for a joint venture did not exclude coverage for defense costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co. et al., 2019 Texas LEXIS 53 (Texas Jan. 25 2019j. Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, Anadarko held a 25% ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. When the well blew out, numerous third parties filed claims against BP entities and Anadarko. Many of the claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment finding BP and Anadarko jointly and severally liable. BP and Anadarko reached a settlement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion. In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP did not agree, however, to cover Anadarko's defense costs. Anadarko had a policy through Lloyd's. The policy provided excess-liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence. Lloyd's paid Anadarko $37.5 million (25% of the $150 million limit) based upon Anadarko 25% ownership in the joint venture. Anadarko argued that Lloyd's still owed all of Anadarko's defense expenses, up to the $150 million limit. 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

Cal/OSHA Approves COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards; Executive Order Makes Them Effective Immediately

July 11, 2021 — Leila S. Narvid - Payne & Fears LLP
On June 17, 2021, California's Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board) passed amended COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order to make the amended ETS effective as soon as filed with the Secretary of State. The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) filed them, and the Secretary of State posted them, making the ETS effective immediately. These changes attempt to bring the ETS in alignment with recent changes to California Department of Public Health Order and the latest guidance from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Highlights of the changes to the ETS can be found here. Face Coverings in the Workplace; Elimination of Physical Distancing Notably, fully vaccinated employees do not have to wear a face covering indoors except in limited circumstances. Unvaccinated workers will still need to wear face coverings indoors (unless they are alone in a room or eating and drinking) and in shared vehicles. All employees regardless of vaccination status do not have to wear masks outdoors. Unvaccinated employees must be trained that face coverings are recommended outdoors for individuals who are not fully vaccinated when six feet of physical distance cannot be maintained. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Leila S. Narvid, Payne & Fears LLP
Ms. Narvid may be contacted at ln@paynefears.com

Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute

November 12, 2019 — Jeremy S. Macklin & Mark F. Wolfe - Traub Lieberman Perspectives
In a written decision dated August 12, 2019, authored by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurer client, affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the insurer’s favor. Partners, Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe, represented the insurer client in the District Court and before the Seventh Circuit. Macklin argued the case before the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the insurer on May 28, 2019. The insurer client issued an excess liability policy to Deerfield Construction, a telecommunications construction company, which incorporated the notice requirements of the primary liability insurance policy issued by American States Insurance Company. The insured’s employee was involved in an automobile accident in 2008, during the effective dates of the excess liability policy. A lawsuit arising from the accident was filed and served in 2009. While Deerfield Construction, through its retained insurance intermediary, provided immediate notice of the accident and lawsuit to the primary liability insurer, the insurer client did not receive notice of either the accident or the lawsuit from any source until December 2014, approximately six weeks before trial. Following a $2.3 million judgment, the insurer client filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a finding that Deerfield Construction materially breached the excess liability policy by not providing reasonable notice of the accident or the lawsuit, as required by the policy. The District Court found that the notice given to the insurer client was unreasonable as a matter of law. The District Court rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that an insurance broker involved in the purchase of the excess liability policy, Arthur J. Gallagher, was the insurer client’s apparent agent for purposes of accepting notice. The District Court also rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that the insurer client’s acts of requesting discovery, reviewing trial reports, and participating in settlement discussions raised equitable estoppel concerns. Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and Mark F. Wolfe, Traub Lieberman Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com Mr. Wolfe may be contacted at mwolfe@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits

October 03, 2022 — Richard W. Brown & Sarah J. Markham - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The December 2021 First Department decision in Nouveau Elevator Indus. v. New York Marine & General Ins. Co. is pushing some buttons in the elevator industry, given the significant implications it may have on the adequacy of policy limits for elevator service companies operating in New York state. The Court held in Nouveau that monthly elevator maintenance work performed under an ongoing service agreement is considered “completed operations” for purposes of applying policy limits. Specifically, the Court found that the per location policy limits are not implicated here, and instead held that the products-completed operations aggregate limit applies to completed work, which expressly includes “that part of the work done at a job site [that] has been put to its intended use.” Facts of the Case Nouveau provides elevator maintenance and service in the greater New York city region. Its work is done in multiple buildings and locations throughout the city. Nouveau purchased six commercial general liability (CGL) policies from New York Marine for consecutive one-year periods. Each of the CGL policies provides a liability limit of $1 million, with an aggregate limit of $2 million, per accident or occurrence. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Sarah J. Markham, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Ms. Markham may be contacted at SMarkham@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES