Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

February 16, 2017 — Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages. In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages. Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

ConsensusDOCS Hits the Cloud

April 02, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed the ConsensusDOCS here at Musings on a few occasions. These relatively new form documents, endorsed by the AGC among other trade organizations, are a great counterpoint to the AIA documents that we all are more than familiar with and as construction attorneys and contractors have likely reviewed on numerous occasions. Recently, these documents have joined the parade and have taken to the cloud. The folks at ConsensusDOCS made this move to ease the type of collaboration that I have discussed must occur on construction projects among the players. The use of the cloud based technology is one of the first uses of this technology to increase productivity. 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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

August 19, 2015 — Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLP
In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

February 10, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

If a condominium owner suffers damage caused by a leak from another unit, may it sue the insurer for the Association of Apartment Owner (AOAO) for coverage? The federal district court for Hawaii said "no" in a decision by Judge Mollway. See Peters v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148734 (D. Haw. December 27, 2011).

Two cases were consolidated. In each case, Plaintiffs owned condominium units at the Watercrest Resort on Molokai. Water leaking from another unit damaged Plaintiffs’ units.

Watercrest Resort was insured by Lexington pursuant to a policy maintained by the AOAO. Plaintiffs filed claims with Lexington. Lexington hired an adjustor.

Unhappy with the adjustment of their claims, Plaintiffs sued Lexington and the adjustor.

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

Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Award of Attorneys’ Fees Although Defended by Principal

February 01, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
For contractors involved in California public works projects the scenario is not uncommon: The general contractor awarded the public works project is required to obtain a payment bond for the benefit of subcontractors and suppliers and the payment bond surety issuing the payment bond requires the general contractor to defend and indemnify the surety from and against any claims against the payment bond. In Cell-Crete Corporation v. Federal Insurance Company, 82 Cal.App.5th 1090 (2022), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a payment bond surety, who prevails in a claim against the payment bond, is entitled to statutory attorneys’ fees when the party actually incurring the attorneys’ fees was the general contractor, pursuant to its defense and indemnity obligations, as opposed to the surety itself. The Cell-Crete Case General contractor Granite Construction Company was awarded a public works contract issued by the City of Thermal known as the Airport Boulevard at Grapefruit Boulevard and Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation Project. We’ll just call it the “Project.” Subcontractor Cell-Crete Corporation entered into a subcontract with Granite for lightweight concrete and related work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

November 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer properly denied coverage for a bulge in a warehouse wall that the insured claimed was caused by Hurricane Ike. Russell v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143882 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2014). Hurricane Ike displaced metal roof coverings on the insured's warehouse, causing interior water damage to several rooms. Scottsdale eventually paid $84,820.36 for the loss of the roof, less the deductible. The parties disagreed on whether a horizontal bulge on the north wall of the warehouse was also caused by the hurricane. The bulging portion of the wall was not cracked, but cracks were seen around the corners and windows. The insured admitted to an engineer retained by Scottsdale that the cracks in the exterior walls had been filled with caulking on several occasions prior to Hurricane Ike. Scottsdale denied coverage for the damage to the north wall under exclusions for soil sinking, rising, or shifting and for damage from faulty, inadequate or defective design, construction, and repair.The insured later sent a demand for $800,000 for the damage to the wall. A suit was eventually filed by the insured. 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

The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims

November 13, 2023 — Marcos R. Gonzalez - ConsensusDocs
The Boards of Contract Appeals, Court of Federal Claims, and the Federal Circuit have long held that the elements of a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) to be jurisdictional. Those requirements are as follows: (a) Claims generally.– (1) Submission of contractor’s claims to contracting officer.–Each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision. (2) Contractor’s claims in writing.—Each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be in writing. (3) Contracting officer to decide Federal Government’s claims.–Each claim by the Federal Government against a contractor relating to a contract shall be the subject of a written decision by the contracting officer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marcos R. Gonzalez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Gonzalez may be contacted at mgonzalez@pecklaw.com

Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
California recently passed AB 1794, which authorized the Employment Development Department to share information it received on new hires with other agencies. The bill also allows the Contractors State License Board to audit members based on this information to determine if contractors are engaging in workers’ compensation fraud. Writing on the Cumming & White construction litigation blog, Iman Reza notes that “the new law is intended to deter contractors from cutting corners in underreporting employees.” The CSLB will be able to discipline contractors who seek to gain an illegitimate competitive advantage by circumventing the law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES