Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time Specified

September 15, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Barickman v. Mercury Casualty Co. (No. B260833, filed 7/25/16, ord. pub. 8/15/16) a California appeals court affirmed a $3 million bad faith award against Mercury Casualty Co. based upon its failure to accept a policy limit demand within the time provided, finding that wording inserted by the claimants’ counsel into the release did not affect the insured’s rights such that the refusal to agree to the wording was unreasonable and in bad faith, exposing the insurer to liability for the insured’s stipulated judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

April 08, 2014 — Gregory J. Rolen – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
We all understand how idle conversation and gossip can negatively impact relationships and workplace morale. But can they cause a school district to lose their lawyer? It is black-letter law that confidential communications between attorney and client are privileged, inadmissible, and cannot be later used against that client by third parties. However, under many circumstances confidential communications that occurred just outside the traditional attorney-client relationship can result in disqualification of counsel. In an environment when many educators become lawyers and education lawyers go from job to job and from client to client, care must be given to the context in which such communications occur. I. The Ethical Duty of Confidentiality Is Broader Than the Attorney-Client Privilege. Generally, every lawyer has a duty to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between the attorney and client. (Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino (2001) 89 Cal. App .4th 294, 309; Evid. Code § 954.) The attorney-client privilege is statutory and permits the holder of the privilege to prevent disclosure, including testimony by the attorney, as to communications that are subject to the privilege. (Evid. Code §§ 952-955.) The attorney’s ethical duty of confidentiality under Business & Professions Code section 6068(e) is broader than the attorney-client privilege. It extends to all information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be kept secret or the disclosure of which would likely be harmful or embarrassing to the client. (See Cal. State Bar Formal Opns. No. 1993-133, 1986-87, 1981-58, and 1976-37; Los Angeles County Bar Association Formal Opns. Nos. 456, 436, and 386. See also In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 930, 940-41.) However, if the status of the person and the purpose of the conversation is unclear to the attorney, highly negative outcomes may result. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory J. Rolen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Rolen may be contacted at grolen@hbblaw.com

State-Fed Fight Heats Up Over Building Private Nuclear Disposal Sites

August 03, 2022 — Mary B. Powers & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Interim Storage Partners, a joint venture that gained a federal license last year to build an interim storage facility for spent commercial nuclear fuel at a Texas site, have until Aug. 3 to answer a federal lawsuit claim by state officials that a new U.S. Supreme Court decision eliminates the federal agency’s licensing authority. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COVID-19 Response: Executive Order 13999: Enhancement of COVID-19-Related Workplace Safety Requirements

March 08, 2021 — Alan Rupe & Luis Mendoza - Lewis Brisbois
President Biden has signed 28 Executive Orders as of February 2, 2021. While this is a large number of Executive Orders compared to the historical record, most call for creating task forces and directing agencies to explore policy changes. However, there is one that stands out to employment lawyers – Executive Order 13999 (Order). Titled “Protecting Worker Health and Safety,” the Order addresses workplace safety. It sets out instructions, primarily to the Secretary of Labor and Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, for establishing and issuing a set of guidelines under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Pursuant to the Order, the Secretary of Labor will issue revised guidance to employers on workplace safety concerning COVID-19, determine if emergency workplace standards are required, and improve overall OSHA shortcomings related to COVID-19 workplace protections and enforcement. Enforcement will include the use of anti-retaliation principles concerning employees reporting unsafe conditions in the workplace. OSHA has issued initial guidance based on the Order. Reprinted courtesy of Alan Rupe, Lewis Brisbois and Luis Mendoza, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Rupe may be contacted at Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Mendoza may be contacted at Luis.Mendoza@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Thanks for My 6th Year Running as a Construction Litigation Super Lawyer

May 16, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the sixth straight year to the Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2022. Add this to my recent election to the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists. So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the 5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2020. The full lists of Virginia Super Lawyers will appear in the May edition of Richmond Magazine. Please check it out. 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

Washington High Court Holds Insurers Bound by Representations in Agent’s Certificates of Insurance

March 16, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In responding to a certified question from the Ninth Circuit in T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, the Washington Supreme Court has held that an insurer is bound by representations regarding a party’s additional insured status contained in a certificate of insurance issued by the insurer’s authorized agent, even where the certificate contains language disclaiming any effect on coverage. To hold otherwise, the court noted, would render meaningless representations made on the insurer’s behalf and enable the insurer to mislead parties without consequence. The certified question and ruling stem from T-Mobile USA’s appeal of the district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of Selective Insurance Company on T-Mobile USA’s breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims. Selective issued the insurance policy at issue to a contractor of T-Mobile Northeast, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA. Through endorsement, the policy extended “additional insured” status to T-Mobile NE because the contract between T-Mobile NE and the insured required that T-Mobile NE be added as an additional insured. Additional insured status was not, however, extended to T-Mobile USA, as T-Mobile USA had not entered a written contract with the insured. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

February 26, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Under California's SB 800 "Right to Repair Act," a builder may obtain a "reasonable release" to resolve a construction defect claim in exchange for a cash payment. So, what's a "reasonable release" under SB 800? This question was answered by the Second Appellate District in the case of Belasco v. Wells (filed 2/17/2015, No. B254525). Plaintiff David Belasco ("Plaintiff") purchased a newly constructed residence in 2004 from the builder defendant Gary Loren Wells ("Wells"). In 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Wells with the Contractors' State License Board (the "Board") regarding certain alleged construction defects. The parties settled the 2006 action through written agreement that required Wells to pay Plaintiff $25,000 in consideration for Plaintiff executing a release and a Civil Code §1524 waiver of all known or unknown claims. In 2012, Plaintiff filed a subsequent action against Wells and Wells’ surety, American Contractors Indemnity Company ("American Contractors") (collectively "Defendants"), alleging a defect in the roof that was discovered by Plaintiff in 2011. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Colin T. Murphy, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Architect Sues over Bidding Procedure

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The city of Louisville, Ohio is being sued by an architect who claims that city officials split projects into parts in order to circumvent state laws on public bidding. Rodney Meadows, the architect who filed the suit, also claims he is not motivated by any interest in working for the city. “I wouldn’t want to work with them,” he said. Nor is he seeking damages in the suit. The project at contention is Louisville’s renovations of an existing building for the Police Department. The city has spent $328,692 on the renovations, but state law says that projects costing more than $25,000 or $50,000 (depending on other matters) must be put out for public bidding. But city officials contend they haven’t broken the law. “A significant amount of work was done by our own people,” said E. Thomas Ault, the Louisville city manager. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES