SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

April 10, 2023 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
In the underlying action, a property owner hosting a motorcycle rally was sued after a motorcycle collided with an auto near the entrance to the premises, injuring the cyclists. The cyclists sued the property owner, among others, alleging failure to supervising traffic on the adjoining roadway. The property owner tendered the claim under its CGL policy, which was endorsed with an “absolute auto exclusion,” precluding coverage for claims “arising out of or resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any…auto.” The CGL insurer disclaimed coverage based on the endorsement. In the ensuing coverage litigation, Traub Lieberman represented the insurer, and moved for summary judgment arguing that the “absolute auto exclusion” was dispositive of coverage on the facts alleged, citing case law from New York state courts enforcing similar exclusions to preclude coverage for multi-vehicle accidents. The insured argued in opposition that the outcome should be controlled by Essex Insurance Company v. Grande Stone Quarry, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 238 (3rd Dep’t 2011), in which the court declined to apply such exclusion in the case of a single-vehicle accident caused by a dangerous condition of the insured’s premises. The federal district judge disagreed with the insured’s argument in this regard, granting Traub Lieberman’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

---

Hawaii Federal District Rejects Another Construction Defect Claim

November 30, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court, District of Hawaii, continued it long line of cases finding no coverage for claims of faulty workmanship. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Summary Judgment RMB Enters., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200468 (D. Haw. Oct. 28, 2020). Property owners entered a construction contract with RMB Enterprises to develop and construct residential structures and a pond. The pond walls enclosed residential spaces, providing structural foundations for the walls of the building. After completion of the project, the pond leaked into its pump room. RMB performed remedial work by injecting epoxy into cracks. Later, water from the pondleaked into the interior of a residence near a staircase. Water also leaked into the master bedroom area causing musty odor, mood growth, and increased humidity. The owners sued RMB asserting breach of contract, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and negligence claims. Nautilus denied coverage. The policy provided that faulty workmanship did not constitute an "occurrence." But when faulty workmanship caused property damage to property other than "your work," then such property damage would be considered caused by an occurrence. 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

---

Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

May 17, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to proving a construction cost, particularly a cost in dispute, the cost must be REASONABLE. Costs subject to claims must be reasonably incurred and the party incurring the costs must show the costs are reasonable. An example of the burden falling on the contractor to prove the reasonableness of costs is found in government contracting. “[T]here is no presumption that a [government] contractor is entitled to reimbursement ‘simply because it incurred…costs.’” Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. Secretary of Army, 973 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Stated differently, a federal contractor is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness just because it incurs costs. Id. In government contracting, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (known as “FAR”) puts the burden of reasonableness on the contractor that incurred the costs. Id. 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

---

Professor Stempel's Excpert Testimony for Insurer Excluded

October 07, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied Daubert motions for several experts with the exception of Professor Stempel's expert testimony opining that the insurer did not act in bad faith Adell Plastics, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102942 (D. Md. June 19, 2019). A fire demolished several buildings at Adell's facility. Adell was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mt. Hawley. Mt. Hawley sued Adell, seeking a declaration that it owed no coverage, and requesting recoupment of a substantial advance payment. Adell filed a counterclaim, alleging that Mt. Hawley had breached the policy and had acted with a lack of good faith. Before the court were several pretrial motions, including motions to exclude testimony of eight expert witnesses. The court denied Adell's motion to exclude several experts to be called by Mt. Hawley. The accountant's testimony was relevant. Adell had to prove damages on its breach of contract claim, and the accountant's testimony would aid the jury in evaluating Adell's documentation and calculating documented damages. Mt. Hawley's fire safety expert investigated the Adell fire. Mt. Hawley had shown that his expert opinion would be sufficiently reliable for admissibility. Further, three fire protection engineers offered by Mt. Hawley and two fire protection engineers to be called by Adell were allowed to testify. Each expert based his investigation and conclusions on the standards of fire investigation as set out in the NEPA Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. This was a fire insurance case, and fire protection engineers would be allowed to testify and illuminate the circumstances of the fire. 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

---

The Privette Doctrine and Its Exceptions: Court of Appeal Grapples With the Easy and Not So Easy

November 18, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In CBRE v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.5th 639 (2024), the 4th District Court of Appeal grappled with a thorny and not-so-thorny issue involving injured parties under the Privette doctrine. The less thorny issue was whether application of the Privette doctrine depends on whether a written contract exists between the parties. Spoiler: It does not. The thorny issue was whether the Hooker exception to the Privette doctrine – which applies when a landowner exercises control over a project – should apply where a landowner directs a contractor to perform work that is at odds with legal requirements. The CBRE Case Property Reserve, Inc. owns an office building managed by CBRE in San Diego, California. On April 9, 2019, PRI entered into a lease agreement with a new tenant for a suite in the building. The lease required that PRI perform certain tenant improvements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

October 16, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Economic damages, unlike non-economic damages (such as those in personal injury disputes), need to rest on a reasonable basis. Economic damages are those routinely seen in a construction dispute. These damages cannot be based on conjecture or guesswork and need to be supported by competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, the economic damages will be deemed too speculative because they are not reasonably quantifiable. I recently discussed a case involving the professional boxer Canelo Alvarez that was sued by a former promoter for unjust enrichment. Although the promoter recovered a jury verdict for unjust enrichment damages against Canelo Alvarez, the verdict was reversed because the methodology utilized by the promoter to demonstrate damages was speculative. This is definitely not what a plaintiff wants to happen after prevailing at the trial level! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

February 08, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Maguire-O’Hara Construction, Inc. v. Cool Roofing Systems, Inc., 2020 WL 6532852 (W.D. Oklahoma 2020) is an interesting case dealing with suretyship law and the subject of whether a Miller Act payment bond surety is bound by a default or default judgment against its prime contractor (bond principal). In this case, a subcontractor sued a prime contractor for breach of contract and the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety for a breach of the payment bond. The prime contractor did not respond to the lawsuit and the subcontractor obtained a default against the contractor. The Miller Act payment bond surety did engage counsel to defend itself in the dispute. Prior to trial, the subcontractor moved in limine to preclude the surety from raising defenses at trial under the subcontract because a default was entered against the prime contractor. The subcontractor argued that the surety should be bound by the default and, therefore, precluded from raising liability defenses under the subcontract. Such a ruling would leave the surety no defenses disputing liability at trial.

[A] suretys’ liability under the Miller Act coincides with that of the general contractor, its principal. Accordingly, a surety [can] plead any defenses available to its principal but [can]not make a defense that could not be made by its principal. Maguire-O’Hara Construction, supra, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

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

---

St Louis County Approves Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the StarTribune, the St Louis County Board agreed to pay $100,000 to settle with the family of a teenager who had been killed in a car crash. The family purported that “an improperly placed road construction sign contributed to the accident that caused her death.” Defendants in the suit included the county, Benchmark Engineering, and Jola & Sopp Excavating. The county board settled, but denied liability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---