Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Florida's New Pre-Suit Notification Requirement: Retroactive or Prospective Application?

February 05, 2024 — Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Florida’s newly formed Sixth District Court of Appeal (“Sixth DCA”) recently certified conflict with Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal on the issue of retroactive application of the pre-suit notice requirement contained in Florida Statute §627.70152.1 Earlier this year, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) held that the pre-suit notice provision applies retroactively, meaning, it applies to all suits filed after July 1, 2021, regardless when the insurance policy was issued.2 The Sixth DCA, in Hughes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company,3 directly rejected the Fourth DCA’s interpretation and instead found a retroactive application of the pre-suit notice to be unconstitutional under Florida law. Prior to the Fourth DCA’s ruling, most trial courts had found no retroactive application for the pre-suit notice provision.4 In August 2021, shortly after Florida Statutes Section 627.70152 went into effect on July 1, 2021, Rebecca Hughes (“Hughes”) sued Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal Property”) for breach of contract after Universal Property denied her insurance claim. Hughes did not file a pre-suit notice under Section 627.70152. Universal Property moved to dismiss based on Hughes’ failure to file the pre-suit notice, arguing that the pre-suit notice requirement applies to all lawsuits filed after July 1, 2021, even if the claimant’s insurance policy was issued before the statute’s effective date. The trial court agreed with Universal Property and dismissed the lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com

Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

March 01, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
On January 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued a decision determining whether the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act (“GCSPA”) provides for punitive damages. While not directly related to construction, the GCSPA can be a potential mechanism for asserting claims against former employees that use company information stored in computers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

Happy Thanksgiving from CDJ

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
As Thanksgiving kicks off this holiday season, all of us at CDJ would like to gratefully acknowledge all of our valued readers and contributors in the construction defect and claims community. This November marks CDJ’s third anniversary. With your continued support we are looking forward to expanded coverage and features in our 4th year. Best wishes to you and yours this holiday season! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Megablimp to Deliver to Remote Alaskan Construction Sites

January 13, 2017 — Ryan W. Sternoff - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Blog
For nearly 20 years, Lockheed Martin has been working on developing a “Hybrid Airship” that may transform the ability to construct facilities in remote project locations.[i] On September 13, 2016, the Daily Journal of Commerce reported that the first of these “Hybrid Airships,” which can land in snow, ice, gravel, and water, are set to deliver from a facility operated by PRL Logistics in Kenai, Alaska, beginning in 2019.[ii] PRL will be operating the blimps in partnership with UK-based Straightline Aviation who placed the first order for the airships this year. According to PRL, the hope is that the airships will provide low cost solutions for moving freight in Alaska, where runways and roads are not always available. The helium-lifted behemoth blimps have space for 47,000 pounds of cargo and 18 passengers and cost about $40 million dollars. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan W. Sternoff, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Sternoff may be contacted at rsternoff@ac-lawyers.com

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

February 18, 2020 — Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law News
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds. The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit. The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit. Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com

BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office Obtains Major Victory in Arbitration!

July 25, 2022 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Theresa Mallen recently achieved a major victory in binding Arbitration. The subject action involved a construction project in the backyard of homeowner’s residence. Homeowner maintained that BWB&O’s contractor client abandoned the project. Furthermore, homeowner alleged that the work performed by BWB&O’s client was deficient. The primary construction defect claim is that the pool deck is not properly sloped which is preventing surface water from running off the top of the retaining wall as designed. The Arbitrator ultimately sided with BWB&O’s client finding that BWB&O’s client did not abandon the project, but rather was terminated by homeowner. Additionally, BWB&O successfully proved that despite the fact that the three pertinent elevations that determine the slope of the concrete pool slab were pre-established before BWB&O’s client even got on the project, that BWB&O’s client properly installed the concrete pool slab and would have established the necessary slope of the pool deck had it not been terminated from the project. Homeowner asserted many other secondary construction defect claims and the Arbitrator found in BWB&O’s client’s favor on each and every issue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract

July 26, 2017 — Richard W. Brown & Afua S. Akoto - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Earlier this year, the 5th Circuit applied the Davis factors to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract. In Larry Doiron Inc. et al., v. Specialty Rental Tool & Supply LLP et al., the court affirmed the notion that if a contract provides services on navigable waters aboard a vessel, a maritime contract exists, even if the contract calls for incidental or insubstantial work unrelated to the use of a vessel. With this decision, plaintiffs were granted indemnification for a crane injury and all was well on the open seas. The 5th Circuit made waves, however, on July 7, 2017, when it agreed to rehear the case en banc. In its petition for rehearing, defendant STS argued that: (1) the original opinion conflicted with Supreme Court precedent by applying tort law principles to a contract case; (2) the court misapplied the Davis factors and the decision was contrary to Davis because the historical treatment of specialty well service work has been established as non-maritime; (3) the court needed to address whether a contract is subject to maritime or land-based law in the context of offshore mineral exploration. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Subrogation, Contribution Rights for Carrier Defending Construction Defect Claim

December 23, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Court held that the insurer defending the additional insured general contractor had no right to equitable subrogation or equitable contribution from a separate carrier who also insured the general contractor as an additional insured. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170293 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2023). Tanger Grand Rapids, LLC hired Rockford Construction Company to build the Tanger Outlet Center. Rockford subcontracted with Kamminga & Roodvoeis, Inc. (K&R) to work on the pavement for the outlet mall. Under the subcontract, K&R agreed to maintain primary commercial general liability insurance for itself, with Rockford as an additionial insured. K&R obtained a policy from Amerisure. For additional paving work, Rockford subcontracted with Michigan Paving & Materials, CP. The subcontract also required Michigan Paving to maintain primary coverage, with Rockford as an additional insured. Michigan Paving obtained a policy from Liberty Mutual. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES