Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

March 28, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Faced with an issue of first impression in California, the Court of Appeals held that a broker was not liable for failing to reveal the insurer's insolvency occurring after issuance of the policy. Pacific Rim Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Ins. Serv. West, Inc., 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 232 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2012).

The developer for a construction project in downtown San Diego retained Aon as its broker to secure coverage. Aon procured a general liability policy for the project with Legion Indemnity Company. Legion was solvent when it issued the policy.

The developer hired Pacific Rim (“PacRim”) as one of several subcontractors on the project. The parties entered into a contract in which the developer agreed to provide PacRim with liability insurance through an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”). Aon was not a party to the contract and PacRim was never its client. PacRim, however, enrolled in the OCIP by contacting Aon and providing all necessary paperwork.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers

January 16, 2024 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
January 10th marked the first day of the 2024 Colorado legislative session. After the pomp and circumstance of opening day, a total of eighty-six bills were introduced. Among them, two impact the construction and insurance industries. First, House Bill 24-1008 would make general contractors and their subcontractors, which are direct employers of an employee, jointly and severally liable for all debts owed based on wage claims or investigations. Essentially, if HB 24-1008 were to become law, general contractors would become the guarantors of wage payments to their subcontractors’ employees. The second bill, House Bill 24-1083, would require the Colorado Division of Insurance to conduct a study of construction liability insurance for construction professionals in Colorado and would require that, 14 days prior to closing the sale of a new residence, the seller provide the purchaser and the county clerk and recorder’s office certain information regarding the insurance coverage for the home. In a year when the legislature should be focusing on construction defect reform and affordable housing for Coloradoans, these first two bills will likely drive up the cost of new construction. House Bill 20-1008, sponsored by Representatives Duran and Froelich, Brown, deGruy Kennedy, Epps, Garcia, Hamrick, Hernandez, Joseph, Lieder, Lindstedt, Mabrey, Mauro, Ricks, Rutinel, Story, Velasco, and Vigil and Senators Danielson and Jaquez Lewis, Exum, Gonzales, Kolker, Marchman, and Sullivan, has been assigned to the House Committee on Business Affairs & Labor but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. The bill summary states: For wage claims brought by individuals working in the construction industry, the bill:

Requires that a subcontractor that receives a written demand for payment forward a copy of the written demand for payment to the general contractor within 3 business days after receipt;

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

December 30, 2013 — W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
The case of Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 452374 (D. Colo. February 6, 2013) is instructive as an example of both the confusion and resulting escalation of litigation that can result from a lack of clarity in settlement negotiations. This is particularly true where parties settle outside of their insurance coverage, and/or without notifying their insurer(s), which have denied coverage. The case involved coverage litigation following settlement of a multi-party construction defect case involving the Rivergate multi-family residential development in Durango, Colorado. The condominium owners association sued, among others, the developer (Rivergate Lofts Partners, hereafter “RLP”) and the general contractor (Genex Construction, LLC, hereafter “Genex”). This follow-on case involved the insurers for RLP (“Hartford”) and Genex (“Bituminous”). The coverage dispute was complicated by the Bituminous allegations that Hartford insured Genex in its alleged role as a manager for RLP, as part of Hartford’s insurance of RLP more generally. The underlying facts were that Hartford denied insurance coverage and defense to Genex/Bituminous. The underlying construction defect case went to mediation, with the COA, RLP, and Genex all in attendance with their respective insurer representatives, and coverage counsel. While the evolving facts of that mediation were later disputed as to their motives, intentions, and the contemporaneous knowledge of the parties, the facts reflected in documents were fairly clear. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

On the Ten Year Anniversary of the JOBS Act A Look-Back at the Development of Crowdfunding

May 02, 2022 — J. Kyle Janecek & Jeffrey M. Dennis - Newmeyer Dillion
Last month marked the ten-year anniversary of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012. On May 16, 2016, Title III of the JOBS Act was enacted, as the final piece of the JOBS Act, which gave businesses better access to crowdfunding tactics due to the ability to raise funds based on equity. Today, the JOBS Act and the impact of equity crowdfunding more generally has grown among multiple industries, from entertainment and technology to real estate and construction, and has come a long way from the non-equity crowdfunding of Kickstarter and Indiegogo. So what have been the powers that businesses gained from Title III of the JOBS Act? What has been the impact of the last ten years? Where do businesses go from here to better utilize this source of funding? WHAT ARE THE CROWDFUNDING POWERS GIVEN BY THE JOBS ACT? The main difference and change that the JOBS Act had on the field of "crowdfunding" was that for the first time, unaccredited investors could obtain equity stakes in businesses through online solicitations. However, a business was still required to go through the proper approved channels, like accredited crowdfunding portals to solicit and receive funding. Prior to this, crowdfunding had gotten more of an impact and reputation from platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, platforms that benefitted creative works or could act as a "pre-order" system with no guaranty of performance or quality of goods by the party seeking funds. Reprinted courtesy of J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion and Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

July 30, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a complaint alleging bad faith for the insurer's failure to adequately investigate the claim. Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 564 (Cal. Ct. App. June 27, 2014). The insured was injured in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The insured sought policy limits of $250,000 from the insurer. In response, the insurer demanded arbitration. The arbitrator awarded $164,120.91. The insured sued, alleging the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged the insured was not at fault. The police report found that the uninsured motorist was the sole cause of the accident. The insured provided the police report and medical records to the insurer. When the insured demanded the $250,000 policy limits, the insurer did not respond. 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

CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

August 19, 2015 — David W. Evans & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel. Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Duty to Defend Under Renter's Policy

May 03, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court agreed that the insurer had no potential liability under a policy where the insured allegedly concealed facts and made misrepresentations regarding the condition of the property it sold. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. TFG Enterprises, LLC, 2021 Neb. LEXIS 27 (Neb. Feb. 19, 2021). TFG sold a house to Jeffrey Barkhurst. Thereafter, Barkhurst filed suit alleging that TFG failed to disclose and actively concealed several defects, including water intrusion, the presence of mold, substandard repairs and structural issues. State Farm agreed to TFG defend under a reservation of rights. State Farm then filed a declaratory judgment action to determine its obligations under the policy. State Farm relied upon various exclusions in the rental policy issued to TFG. The exclusions provided there would be no liability coverage for "property damage to property owned by an insured"; "property damage to property rented to, occupied or used by or in the care of the insured"; or "property damage to premises the insured sells. . . if the property damage arises out of these premises." 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

"Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

February 02, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of coverage for the insured based upon the exclusion for "damage to your product." S.E. Arnold & Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 625 (Ark. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2016). The homeowners paid the insured, S.E. Arnold & Company, over $78,000 to supply and install wood flooring in their residence. The homeowners eventually sued Arnold, alleging that the products and services as provided by Arnold had breached its contract, Arnold was negligent, and it violated applicable rules, regulations, and laws. Specifically, the homeowners alleged that the flooring as sold and installed had splinters, cupping occurred across the width of the individual pieces of flooring, and installation was in contradiction to industry standards and applicable building codes. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES