Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

September 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Manhattan Supreme Court “denied a last-ditch effort by Jeshayahu Boymelgreen to avoid handing over financial records as part of a state investigation into the development of 15 Broad Street in the Financial District,” according to The Real Deal. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had ordered Boymelgreen to turn over the records. Futhermore, according to court records (as reported in The Real Deal), “the developer was also seeking to reduce the amount of money required to fund a $470,000 escrow account to make repairs at the condo — known as Downtown by Starck — which Boymelgreen jointly developed with Africa Israel.” “We’re glad to see that the courts are rejecting Boymelgreen’s arguments why he shouldn’t be required to maintain an escrow account as security for the sponsor to obtain a permanent certificate of occupancy for 15 Broad, as was set forth in the very offering he participated in with Africa Israel,” Steven Sladkus, attorney for unit owners at the condo, stated. “Accountability is one step closer to the light at the end of the tunnel.” Brian Itzkowitz, an attorney representing Boymelgreen, did not return The Real Deal’s calls or emails. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

January 28, 2014 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams attorneys scored a significant victory for the insurance industry on January 15, 2014, when a federal jury of four men and four women rejected a policyholder’s novel efforts to invalidate asbestos exclusions contained in insurance policies issued between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985. In General Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 04-CV-3509 (E.D. Pa.), General Refractories Company contended that asbestos exclusions in insurance policies issued by various insurance companies in the late 1970s and 1980s had not been submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance for approval prior to use and, therefore, were unenforceable. Holding a failure to obtain approval, by itself, would not be sufficient to render the exclusions unenforceable, the Honorable Edmund Ludwig sent the matter to trial to determine whether the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner implemented a policy that was uniformly executed by the Insurance Department to disapprove all asbestos exclusions between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985, such that the exclusions violated a “dominant public policy.”

Reprinted courtesy of Gregory LoCasale, White and Williams LLP

and Patricia Santelle , White and Williams LLP

Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com and Mr. LoCasale may be contacted at locasaleg@whiteandwilliams.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

November 23, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventh Circuit found there was no duty to defend the contractor additional insured for the costs of repairing and replacing roofing installed incorrectly by the subcontractor insured. Core Constr. Servs. Southeast v. Crum & Forster Spec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17575 (11th Cir. Sept 28, 2016). After the condominium project was completed, Hurricane Wilma damaged several roofs in the development. The association and its insurer, Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, discovered that the roof had been installed incorrectly by Patnode Roofing, Inc. Empire paid for the damages and the association assigned its claims against Core Construction and its subcontractors, including Patnode, to Empire. Empire then sued Core Construction, Patnode and other subcontractors. 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

COVID-19 Case Remanded for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy

September 14, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court remanded to state court a loss of rent claim because the amount in controversy requirement was not met. Geragos & Geragos Fine Arts Bldg., LLC v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 2020 U.S Dist. LEXIS 127427 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2020). Geragos suffered loss of rental income due to the COVID-19 tenant relief measures implemented in Los Angeles. The tenant relief orders would remain in effect for the duration of the emergency period, the end date of which was not presently set. Geragos submitted a claim for loss of rental income to Travelers. When the claim was denied, Geragos sued in state court. Travelers removed to federal district court. Geragos moved to remand the case back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 Pandemic, Proposed Federal Privacy Regulation and the CCPA

November 02, 2020 — Heather Whitehead - Newmeyer Dillion
The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation met recently to discuss considerations for implementing federal privacy laws. Not surprisingly, the main impetus to reevaluate a federal framework is the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic with the greatly increased reliance on online working and school arrangements, as well as the need to share personal information for contact tracing and other efforts to weaken the pandemic. While federal regulation of personal information has been proposed in the past, there are a few key issues that still remain unresolved. One is enforcement of the regulations. The issue is whether enforcement should be handled by the Federal Trade Commission or if the establishment of a new federal authority is needed to enforce privacy requirement violations. Other key outstanding issues include pre-emption of state rights and whether any regulations should include a private right of action. Given that the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) is the most stringent state regulation addressing data privacy in the United States, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra participated as a witness in the recent Senate Hearing. He shared his opinions as to both federal pre-emption and the need for a private right of action. He recommended that the committee preclude federal regulation from pre-empting state laws, including the CCPA. He noted that individual states are in a better position to adapt and keep up with technological innovation, and that some states have also already implemented thorough privacy protections, such as Mississippi and Washington. With respect to the private right of action, he admitted his office can only do so much to enforce these regulations amongst California’s huge population of businesses and residents. His belief is that individual consumers need the ability to pursue their own remedies in court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com

Insured's Complaint Against Flood Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

May 07, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's attempt to dismiss the insured's multi-count complaint for failure to provide full coverage for flood damage failed. Ragusa Corp. v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40812 (D. Conn. March 27, 2014). The insureds' house suffered significant damage due to flood associated with Hurricane Irene. The insureds submitted a claim. Standard Fire paid $35,216.75, well below what the insureds thought they were owed. The insureds returned the check and demanded what they believed was full payment. The insureds demanded an appraisal because the parties did not agree on the amount being paid under the policy, including disagreement about the amount owed for items that both sides agreed were covered under the policy. Standard Fire refused to participate in an appraisal. The insureds ended up suing Standard Fire, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 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

Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

April 10, 2019 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
California landlords must follow very specific steps before disposing of property that is clearly abandoned, left on real estate which has been the subject of court proceedings such as eviction or foreclosure, or otherwise left behind. Following the statutory procedures relating to abandoned property protects landlords from potential liability for an improper “conversion.” Former tenants/owners and others “reasonably believed” to be owners of the apparently abandoned personal property must be given proper written notice of the right to reclaim the abandoned property. The tenant is presumed to be the owner of any “records” remaining on the property. The California Code of Civil Procedure provides a template for such notice. The notice to be provided to former tenants/owners must be in “substantially” the same form provided in the California Code of Civil Procedure and must contain the following information:

A description of the abandoned property in a manner reasonably adequate to permit the owner of the property to identify it;
The location where the tenant can claim the property;
The time frame that the tenant has to claim the property. The date specified in the notice shall be a date not less than fifteen (15) days after the notice is personally delivered or, if mailed, not less than eighteen (18) days after the notice is deposited in the mail;
A statement that reasonable storage costs will be charged to the tenant/owner and the tenant/owner must pay those costs before claiming the property; and

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

June 10, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The employee exclusions in the employer's CGL and Umbrella policies barred coverage. Piatt v. Indiana Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Mo. LEXIS 32 (Mo. April 28, 2015). Linda Nunley was killed while working for Missouri Hardwood Charcoal, Inc. The kiln's large steel door had been removed and was leaning upright against another kiln when it blew over and crushed Ms. Nunley. Her family filed a wrongful death suit against Junior Flowers, the company's sole owner, director, and executive officer. The complaint alleged that Flowers was negligent in ordering employees to lean the kiln doors upright, even though he knew it was unsafe. The complaint further alleged that Flowers breached a personal duty of care owed to Ms. Nunley and that his actions were "something more" that a breach of the company's duty to provide a safe workplace. Flowers requested a defense under CGL and Umbrella policies issued by Lumbermen's. The policies insured Missouri Hardwood and its executive officers, but excluded liability for a work-related injury to an "employee of the insured." The policies also had a "separation of insureds" provision, stating that the insurance applied "separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought." Lumbermen's denied coverage. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES