Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Rise Of The Improper P2P Tactic

September 18, 2023 — Tim Capowski - Kahana Feld
About a year ago a colleague brought my attention to the increase in irrelevant, inflammatory, scandalous, and improper language in plaintiff pleadings in catastrophic injury, fire, and death cases. Since that time, the problem has only intensified around the country. The purpose of this improper practice is multifaceted, and has nothing to do with properly or sufficiently pleading a lawsuit. Primarily, it is designed to create ready-made and targeted sensational content for news organizations to publish and re-publish (and for news bots to disseminate) to poison the future jury pool. The lay public interprets this content as imbued with credibility not only because it emanates from sworn or verified court filings but because it carries the further patina afforded by multiple news sources’ reliance on it. This method of pleading-to-press (hereinafter “P2P”) publicity attack carries far more weight than mere press conference allegations. Ironically, P2P is demonstrably wrong because a plaintiff counsel making the identical assertions at a press conference or via a press release during litigation would be subject to libel claims (litigation privilege does not attach), gag orders, and professional misconduct referrals in most jurisdictions. Just like the Reptile attacks are simply a repackaged variant of the long precluded “Golden Rule” tactic, the P2P attacks are nothing more than a very clever but highly improper way to circumvent the press conference publicity impropriety; the defense bar and judiciary simply haven’t caught up with it yet. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tim Capowski, Kahana Feld
Mr. Capowski may be contacted at tcapowski@kahanafeld.com

Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

May 27, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Court of Appeals found the subcontractor was owed a defense for alleged property damage caused by its faulty workmanship, but outside its scope of work. Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 W. Huron Condo. Ass'n, 2019 Ill. App. LEXIS 208 (Ill. Ct. App. March 29, 2019). The condominium association sued its general contractor, Belgravia, for alleged defects allowing water to infiltrate and cause damage. Belgravia filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractors, including the carpentry subcontractor Denk & Roche. Denk & Roche held a CGL policy with two insurers during the relevant period, one with Cincinnati Insurance Company for the period January 1, 2000 through June 1, 2007, and another with Acuity Insurance Company, effective June 1, 2007, through December 31, 2013. Denk & Roche tendered its defense to both insurers. Cincinnati agreed to defend and contributed to a settlement of the AOAO's claims. Acuity denied a defense, contending that the underlying claims did not trigger a duty to defend. Acuity's declaratory judgment suit sought a determination that it had no duty to defend. Cincinnati intervened and argued it was entitled to equitable contribution from Acuity. 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

Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

March 22, 2017 — David R. Cook - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a county’s claim on developer bonds based on its failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Douglas County v. Hamilton State Bank, — Ga. App. –, A16A1708 (Mar. 16, 2017). Specifically, because the bank was under FDIC receivership, the County was required to pursue administrative remedies under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (the “Act”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

December 15, 2016 — Ellen Burrows – White and Williams LLP
Calling into question the continued validity of the so-called “Bellefonte Rule,” on December 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether a facultative reinsurance contract limit is presumptively all-inclusive and “caps” the reinsurer’s total exposure even where the reinsured policy pays defense costs in addition to the limit. Global Reinsurance Corporation v. Century Indemnity Company Docket No. 15-2164-cv (December 8, 2016).[1] In Bellefonte Reinsurance Company v. Aetna 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990), the court ruled that a reinsurer was not liable to pay defense costs above the stated reinsurance contract limit. Although litigants argued that this ruling was dependent on the fact that the reinsured policy limits were defense cost-inclusive, a later panel of the Second Circuit applied the “cap” ruling in Bellefonte to a situation where the reinsured policy limit was not cost-inclusive and where the insurer was obligated to pay defense costs in addition to the policy limit. Unigard Security Insurance Company v. North River Insurance Company 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellen Burrows, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Burrows may be contacted at burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com

Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

April 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder. Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

May 31, 2021 — Paulo Flores, Timothy D. Matheny & Jackson Mabry - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The Texas Legislature has just sent Senate Bill 219 (“S.B. 219”) to the Governor for signature; if this legislation is signed by the Governor, it will further erode the Texas legal doctrine that makes the contractor the warrantor of owner-furnished plans and specifications unless the prime contract specifically places this burden on the owner. Background 49 states follow what is known as the Spearin doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Spearin) in which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-furnished plans and specifications. Texas, on the other hand, follows the Texas Supreme Court created Lonergan doctrine, which has been an unfortunate presence in Texas construction law since 1907. In its “purest form,” as stated by the Texas Supreme Court, the Lonergan doctrine prevents a contractor from successfully asserting a claim for “breach of contract based on defective plans and specifications” unless the contract contains language that “shows an intent to shift the burden of risk to the owner.” Essentially, this then translates into the contractor warranting the sufficiency and accuracy of owner-furnished plans and specifications, unless the contract between them expressly places this burden on the owner. Over the years some Texas courts of appeal had ameliorated this harsh doctrine, but in 2012, the Texas Supreme Court indicated Lonergan was still the law in Texas, in the case of El Paso v. Mastec. In 2019, the Texas Legislature took the first step toward hopefully abrogating the Lonergan doctrine by implementing a new Chapter 473 to the Texas Transportation Code with respect to certain projects undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation, and Texas political subdivisions acting under the authority of Chapters 284, 366, 370 or 431 of the Transportation Code, adopting, as it were, the Spearin Doctrine in these limited, transportation projects. Now, the legislature has further chipped away at the Lonergan doctrine with the passage of S.B. 219. Reprinted courtesy of Paulo Flores, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Jackson Mabry, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Flores may be contacted at PFlores@Pecklaw.com Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com Mr. Mabry may be contacted at jmabry@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

South Dakota Supreme Court Holds That Faulty Workmanship Constitutes an “Occurrence”

September 14, 2017 — Samantha Martino - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The South Dakota Supreme Court recently determined that damage resulting from a subcontractor’s failure to test soil compaction before constructing a home constituted an “accident” and was therefore an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy. In Owners Ins. Co. v. Tibke Construction, Inc., the homeowners hired Tibke Construction, Inc. to build a new house, and Tibke Construction hired subcontractor Jerry’s Excavating to perform excavation work. The homeowners contended that Jerry’s Excavating failed to do soil compaction testing before commencing construction, which resulted in the home being built on highly expansive soils, leading to damage including excessive settlement, cracking and structural unsoundness. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Samantha Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan

February 27, 2019 — Rick Clough - Bloomberg
General Electric Co. will reimburse the state of Massachusetts for funds used to develop the manufacturer’s future headquarters, a project that is now being scaled back under Chief Executive Officer Larry Culp. GE and the state will jointly sell the property in Boston’s Fort Point neighborhood where the company will make its future home, according to an agreement revealed Thursday. GE still plans to move into the campus later this year -- as a tenant rather than owner -- but it’s scrapping plans to build an adjacent 12-story tower. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Clough, Bloomberg

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES