Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions

February 03, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Joella v. Cole, 2019 PA Super. 313, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered whether a tenant, alleged by the landlord’s property insurance carrier to have carelessly caused a fire, was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s policy. The court found that the tenant was an implied co-insured because the lease stated that the landlord would procure insurance for the building, which created a reasonable expectation that the tenant would be a co-insured under the policy. Since the tenant was an implied co-insured on the policy, the insurance carrier could not maintain a subrogation action against the tenant. This case confirms that Pennsylvania follows a case-by-case approach when determining whether a tenant was an implied co-insured on a landlord’s insurance policy. The Joella case stems from a fire at an apartment building in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The landlord’s property insurance carrier paid the landlord $180,000 to repair the damages resulting from the fire. In March 2018, the insurer brought a subrogation action against Annie Cole, a tenant in the building, alleging that Ms. Cole’s negligent use of an extension cord caused the fire. Ms. Cole raised the affirmative defense that she was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy. The subrogating insurer filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Ms. Cole’s defense. In response, Ms. Cole filed a cross motion for partial judgment, arguing that because the lease specified that the landlord would maintain fire insurance for the building, there was a reasonable expectation that she would be a co-insured on that policy. The trial court found in favor of Ms. Cole, holding that the landlord’s insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against her because she was an implied co-insured of the landlord’s insurance policy under the terms of the lease. The landlord’s insurer filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

New York Considering Legislation That Would Create Statute of Repose For Construction

April 05, 2021 — Richard W. Brown & Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
New York is considering legislation, which, if enacted, would create a statute of repose limiting the number of years after completion of a construction project that legal action may be asserted against a contractor. New York currently remains the only state without a statute of repose for construction. Earlier this year, however, the New York State Legislature introduced Bills S04127 and A01706 (the “Bill”) , which would impose a 10-year period of repose in which an injured party may bring suit against a design professional and/or a contractor for bodily injury or property damage resulting from a construction defect. Currently, contractors and design professionals have exposure to bodily injury and property damage claims resulting from construction defects for an unlimited number of years after completion of a project. If enacted, the Bill would limit the period of repose to 10 years after the project is completed, which is deemed to occur upon substantial completion or acceptance by the owner. An additional 1-year grace period is provided for an injured party to file suit where bodily injury or property damage occurs in the tenth year after completion. The Bill notably limits the applicability of the 10-year statute of repose to third-party actions and thereby preserves the existing 3-year and 6-year statutes of limitation applicable to actions asserted by an owner or client for professional malpractice and breach of contract, respectively. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Know and Meet Your Notice Requirements or Lose Your Payment Bond Claims

May 17, 2021 — Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Time is of the essence in the construction industry, and failing to provide timely notice of your payment bond claim can end your chance of recovery. Payment bonds guarantee payment for the subcontractors and suppliers who provide labor or materials on covered construction projects. Federal and state statutes governing payment bonds on public projects and the specific terms of non-statutory, private payment bonds have strict notice and timing requirements. Claimants who fail to provide timely notice can forfeit their chance of recovery. This article provides a brief overview of the notice requirements for payment bond claims – who has to give notice, what notice is required, and when you have to give notice. Payment bond protection is a frequent feature in construction. Payment bonds are required on most federal construction projects of over $100,000 under the federal Miller Act. Similar state statutes, typically referred to as “Little Miller Acts,” also require payment bonds on most state and local construction projects. Owners on private projects may require their general contractor to provide a payment bond to protect the property from liens. Finally, general contractors may also require subcontractors to provide payment bonds on public or private projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com

Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

October 02, 2015 — David A. Harris & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. (“Vita Planning”), the First Appellate District held California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 410.42 (“Section 410.42”) which prohibits an out-of-state contractor from requiring a California subcontractor to litigate disputes in a state other than California, applies not only to traditional “contractors” and “subcontractors” but also to design professionals and architects. In Vita Planning, a dispute arose when HKS, a Texas based architectural firm, refused to pay Vita Planning and Architecture (“Vita”), a landscape design firm, for work on a luxury hotel in Mammoth Lakes, California (“Project”). HKS contended it was not required to pay Vita until it was paid by the owner of the Project, and any claims regarding the work needed to be filed in Texas pursuant to a forum selection clause contained in a Prime Contract between HKS and the Owner. The forum clause was “incorporated by reference” into an unsigned “standard form” agreement between HKS and Vita. Despite the forum clause, Vita filed a Complaint against HKS in Marin County Superior Court. Reprinted courtesy of Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Problems abounded at the inaugural match at one of the new World Cup stadiums in Manaus, Brazil, reported The News Tribune. Problems also were reported at the Arena da Amazonia. Bathrooms weren’t completed, roofs leaked, and some fans were sold tickets for seats that didn’t exist. Furthermore “construction material could be seen in some places and many wheelchair fans had difficulties accessing their seats.” "This is a critical point that needs to be reevaluated, it can't happen again," said Miguel Capobiango, one of the officials in charge of World Cup preparations in Manaus, as quoted by The News Tribune. "But this is why we have these test events." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

January 21, 2019 — Timothy Carroll & Anthony Miscioscia - White and Williams
A recent opinion by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (Second Department) highlights the potential risks for an insurer leaving an insured unrepresented while the insurer pursues other parties or insurers who may be primarily responsible for defending the insured. In refusing to overturn a default judgment entered against an insured while its insurer knew that a complaint had been filed but refused to defend, the New York court’s decision raises questions about how claims adjusters are to effectively manage new claims to prevent a default judgment being entered against the insured, while at the same time ensuring that the appropriate party or insurance company handles the insured’s defense. In Kaung Hea Lee v. 354 Management Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7749 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2018) (354 Management) the underlying plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendant insured due to its failure to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs then moved to determine the extent of damages to which they were entitled by virtue of the default judgment. The defendant opposed that motion, relying on an affidavit from a senior liability claims adjuster employed by the defendant’s insurer. “In the affidavit, the claim adjuster stated that she did not assign an attorney to answer the complaint because the codefendant . . . was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant [insured], and she had been attempting to have either [the codefendant] or its insurer provide an attorney” for the defendant. However, it was determined that the claims adjuster knew about the plaintiffs’ complaint two weeks after the plaintiffs served it on the defendant and months before the plaintiffs moved for default judgment. Despite this knowledge, the defendant’s insurer did not provide a defense or, apparently, obtain an extension of time to respond to the complaint, which led to the default judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Jason Feld Awarded Volunteer of the Year by Claims & Litigation Management Alliance

April 15, 2024 — Linda Carter - Kahana Feld
On April 3, 2024, Kahana Feld’s Co-Founding Partner, Jason Feld was honored by the Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) with the Inaugural Volunteer of the Year award. The CEO of CLM, Ronna Ruppelt stated, “The new CLM Volunteer of the Year award honors dedicated members who passionately serve the CLM community. Jason’s service spans over a decade as both the President and Director of Events for the Orange County Chapter. Under his guidance, this chapter has flourished – not only educating and connecting the CLM community but rallying members to give back to the local community through service events in the process. Jason is also a frequent writer, speaker, and contributor for CLM events, and we are proud to honor him as our inaugural CLM Volunteer of the Year.” Mr. Feld is a renowned nationwide construction claims leader who actively speaks at industry events. He serves as panel counsel for many prominent insurance carriers and provides personal counsel for multiple national and regional builders, developers, and contractors. With his vast experience and expertise, Mr. Feld is a trusted authority in the field and is highly regarded for his legal representation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

March 12, 2015 — Max W. Gavron and Keith M. Rozanski – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Boxes, ladders, furniture or other objects commonly placed in aisles, walkways or paths may not be temporary obstructions and may be actionable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) according to a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. DBA Pier 1 Imports #1132, No. 12-16857 (filed March 5, 2015). Many property and business owners have long operated under the assumption that they are not violating ADA regulations requiring minimum clear widths for accessible routes (“[t]he minimum clear width of an accessible route shall be 36 in[ches]” (28 C.F.R. pg. 36, app. A, § 4.3.3)) when they place objects that can easily be removed in aisles or pathways such as trash cans, ladders, plants, signs and the like because temporary obstructions are not considered violations of the ADA (28 C.F.R. § 36.211(b)). Reprinted courtesy of Max W. Gavron, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Keith M. Rozanski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Gavron may be contacted at mgavron@hbblaw.com Mr. Rozanski may be contacted at krozanski@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES