Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

October 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond. A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA. In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Congratulations to Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

January 23, 2023 — Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt, LLP
Nine Gibbs Giden partners have been selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers list for the third year in a row! Congratulations to partners Jason Adams Barbara Gadbois Sara Kornblatt William Locher Christopher Ng (Managing Partner) Glenn Turner, III Ted Senet Richard Wittbrodt Philip Zvonicek Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Court-Side Seat: Citizen Suits, “Facility” Management and Some Nuance for Your Hazard Ranking

September 28, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Some very interesting and fairly complex environmental law rulings have been released in the past few days. U.S. Supreme Court—Trump, et al. v. Sierra Club, et al. On July 31, 2020, in a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court denied a motion to lift the stay entered by the Court a few days earlier. The earlier action stayed a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which had enjoined the construction of a wall along the Southern Border of the United States which was to be constructed with redirected Department of Defense funds. The merits will be addressed by the lower court and perhaps the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—Meritor, Inc. v. EPA In a case involving EPA’s administration of the Superfund National Priority List (NPL) of priority Superfund sites requiring expedited cleanup, the court held that EPA had acted in accordance with the law and its implementing rules, and denied relief. Meritor was spun off from Rockwell Corporation, and is responsible for Rockwell’s environmental liabilities, including sites Meritor never operated. In 2016, EPA added the Rockwell International Wheel & Trim facility in Grenada, Miss., to the NPL list. Meritor alleged that this listing was arbitrary and capricious, pointing to EPA’s failure to adequately consider the impact of a mitigation measure added to the facility to address vapor intrusion, a factor EPA must consider in its application of the agency’s hazard ranking system. However, the court was not impressed by these arguments, and denied relief. The court’s discussion of the nuances of the hazard ranking system is very instructive Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause

July 11, 2018 — Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation Strategist
In recent months, the Northern District of Mississippi has grappled with how to interpret waivers of subrogation in American Institute of Architects (AIA) construction industry contracts and, specifically, how they apply to work versus non-work property. The distinction between work and non-work property has been commonly litigated and remains a hotly debated topic when handling subrogation claims involving construction defects. In Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Fowlkes Plumbing, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23515 (February 12, 2018), a fire consumed the entire insured risk when one of the defendants was performing window restoration services. Subsequently, the insured’s subrogated insurer filed suit against several defendants involved in the construction project at issue. In response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi considered whether the waiver of subrogation clause in AIA contract form A201-2007 precluded the subrogated insurer from recovering damages from the defendants. The court held that the waiver of subrogation provision contained in AIA document A201-2007 barred the insurer from recovering for damages to the work itself, but did not apply to non-work property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

March 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Damage to the YMCA recreation center was not covered due to application of the earth movement exclusion. YMCA of Pueblo v. Secura Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15249 (D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2015). On October 11, 2013, the insureds discovered a leaking water line in the men's shower, where one of the shower's on/off valves had detached from the water pipe behind the wall. The leak was repaired the same day. On October 13, 2013, the pool deck near the therapy pool and surrounding block walls shifted and collapsed. The insurer admitted there was damage to the property. Several leaks were discovered in the pipes under and near the therapy pool, and the pool lost several inches of water. 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

FIFA Inspecting Brazil’s World Cup Stadiums

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Representatives from FIFA have returned to Brazil to conduct inspections of the World Cup stadiums, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Even though Brazil had told FIFA they would have all twelve done by the end of 2013, only nine are finished. Furthermore, “infrastructure work in many of the 12 host cities remains far from completed.” “This is the last occasion for the organizers to take stock of the operational preparations before the respective FIFA World Cup installations begin to be implemented in all 12 host cities,” FIFA said in a statement, as quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson

August 04, 2021 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Although the focus of most subrogation cases is usually on proving liability, determining the appropriate measure of damages is just as important. Sometimes turning on a nuanced argument for recoverability, an adverse holding can significantly boost or reduce the total damages in a case. The Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District (Court) recently decided such an issue in a case involving subrogation, holding that the defendants owed much more than they originally anticipated. In Five Solas v. Ram Realty Servs., No. 4D19-2211 2021, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 7546, the Court reviewed the appropriate setoff in damages that the defendants were entitled to when measuring the recoverable damages. The Court reversed the lower court’s holding, which held that the defendants were entitled to a setoff that limited the jury’s award to $104,481.75. Instead the Court held that the defendants were only entitled to a setoff equal to the excess recovery over replacement cost. The case involves, among other things, property damage sustained by building owner Five Solas (Owner) and its lessee William Price, P.A. from a collapsed wall originating from the property of the defendants, Ram Realty Services, LLC and Sodix Fern, LLC d/b/a Alexander Lofts (collectively referred to as Defendants). Owner’s carrier, Foremost Insurance Company (Foremost), paid out its policy limit of $430,518.25 to Owner for damage to the building. Owner then pursued its claim against the tortfeasors for the remaining damages not paid by its carrier.[1] Foremost also pursued a subrogation claim, but settled its subrogation claim with Defendants, assigning its subrogation rights to Defendants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

In the case Antangan v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership (Cal. App., 2012), Plaintiffs appealed “an order vacating a judgment and entering a modified judgment in their construction defect action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership,” while the Defendant, Shea Homes Limited Partnership (Shea Homes) appealed “an order of the judicial referee denying its motion to strike and tax costs.”

On the Antagon issue, the appeals court concluded that “the trial court did not err by vacating and modifying its judgment so that the cost of referee’s fees would be equally divided by the parties and consistent with a prior stipulation they filed in court.”

On the Shea Homes issue, the appeals court concluded: “1) the judicial referee did not err by ruling that plaintiffs’ offers to compromise (§ 998) were validly served on Shea Homes’ counsel, 2) the offers substantially complied with statutory requirements, 3) the offers were not required to be apportioned, and 4) the referee’s award of $5,000 as costs for a person assisting plaintiffs’ counsel was not an abuse of discretion.” The appeals court affirmed the judgment.

Here is a brief history of the trial case: “Plaintiffs Chito Antangan, Jimmy Alcova and other homeowners brought an action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership for damages alleging that the properties they purchased from these ‘developer defendants’ were defective. Plaintiffs claimed numerous construction defects required them ‘to incur expenses’ for ‘restoration and repairs’ and the value of their homes had been diminished.”

In response, Shea Homes filed a motion for an order to appoint a judicial referee. The motion was granted and it was ruled that “a referee would ‘try all issues’ and ‘report a statement of decision to this court.’”

On May 10, 2010 the judicial referee (Thompson) “awarded plaintiffs damages and various costs, and ruled that ‘Shea Homes shall bear all of the Referee’s fees.’” The latter ruling would become a matter for contention later on.

In July of 2010, the plaintiffs “sought, among other things, $54,409.90 for expert fees, and $14,812.50 for the services of Melissa Fox for ‘exhibit preparation & trial presentation.’ Shea Homes filed a motion to strike and/or tax costs claiming: 1) Fox was a paralegal, 2) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney’s fees, and 3) the fees for Fox’s services were an indirect and improper method to obtain attorney’s fees. The referee disagreed and awarded $5,000 for Fox’s services. The referee also ruled that plaintiffs had properly served valid offers to compromise (§ 998) on Shea Homes’ counsel in 2009. He said those offers to defendants in the case at that time did not have to be apportioned.”

“Antangan contends the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment, which ordered Shea Homes to pay all the referee’s fees. We disagree.”

Antagon contended that the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment regarding Shea Homes paying the referee’s fees. The appeals court disagreed: “A trial court has inherent authority to vacate or correct a judgment that is void on its face, incorrect, or entered by mistake. (§ 473; Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998),67 Cal.App.4th 1228; Olivera

Read the court’s decision…

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES