Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Attorneys' Fees Awarded as Part of "Damages Because of Property Damage"

October 07, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the district of Hawaii found that an arbitrator's award of attorneys' fees was part of the "damages because of property damage" and covered under a CGL policy. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of the Moorings v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110283 (Aug. 18, 2016 D. Haw). The Moorings AOAO was the named insured under the policy issued by Dongbu. Jo-Anne and Brent Braden, owners of a residential unit at the Moorings, filed a demand for arbitration against the AOAO. The Bradens alleged that the AOAO had failed to repair and maintain their lanai roof, which caused water damage to their unit. The arbitrator awarded the Bradens $6,103.49 in special damages, which was the amount they paid to repair their roof and interior damage. The arbitrator also awarded $85,644.30 in attorneys' fees and $8,515.91 in costs to the Bradens. 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

Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

January 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court determined that a conditional judgment on replacement costs was appropriate after the insurer denied coverage. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1073 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2014). Stephens operated a large industrial warehouse. It initially purchased a commercial liability policy from Fireman's Fund when an tenant occupied the building. After the tenant left, Stephens purchased from Fireman's Fund property coverage on June 28, 2007. On July 1, Stephens discovered that burglars had caused more than $2 million in damage to the property. All conductive material was stripped from the building and taken away. There was water damage throughout the building. The estimated cost of repair exceeded $1 million. Stephens notified Fireman's Fund. The insurer paid emergency repairs, but it neither accepted nor denied coverage for the loss. Finally, five years after the incident and on the eve of trial, Fireman's Fund 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

Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.

First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”

The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”

Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”

The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine

March 28, 2018 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which generally holds that a higher-tiered party is not liable for injuries sustained by employees of a lower-tiered party under the peculiar risk doctrine, here, here, here and here. We’ve also talked about some of the exceptions to the Privette doctrine, including the non-delegable duty doctrine and the negligent exercise of retained control doctrine, which provide that a hirer cannot rely on the Privette doctrine if it owed a non-delegable duty to an employee of an independent contractor or if it retained control over the work of an employee of an independent contractor and negligently exercised that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to injuries to that employee. In the next case, Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., Second District Court of Appeals, Case No. B270985 (February 2, 2018), the Court examined whether a property owner could be held liable under the non-delegable duty doctrine and negligent exercise of retained control doctrine for failing to provide structural anchor bolts on its buildings which led to the death of an employee of window washing company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rose, Black, & Dean, LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

March 04, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorezCDJ STAFF

After five years of legal battles, the condo owners of the El Cortez Hotel building in downtown San Diego settled for $6.4 million, as reported by The San Diego Union-Tribune on March 28, 2011. The Homeowners Association will net just over $3 million from the settlement.

The litigation may have had an adverse effect on the value of the condos within the El Cortez Hotel building. According to an article by Kelly Bennett of Voice of San Diego, “Many condos in the building originally sold for more than $600,000. Currently, the three units on the market are asking for just more than $200,000, the U-T said.”

Andrew Berman, the owners’ attorney, told The San Diego Union-Tribune that the five years of litigation included six lawsuits, 200 depositions, and multiple construction tests.

Read the full story... (San Diego Union Tribune)

Read the full story... (Voice of San Diego)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Daubert Challenge to Insured's Expert Partially Successful

November 03, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer was partially successful in challenging two of the insureds' experts in a bad faith case. Estate of Arroyo v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115669 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2016). The Estate sought to qualify two experts, Lewis N. Jack and James P. Schratz. They were to opine on Infinity's handling of the Estate's insurance claims and the extent of damages warranted in the case. Jack was to testify on Infinity's duties to the insured, its investigation of the case, its reliance on Infinity's agents, and his belief that Infinity could have settled the case. Schratz's opinions mostly concerned Infinity's handling of its investigation. 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

Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The city of Ardmore, Oklahoma is seeing a building boom with the total value of building permits issued by the city in November slightly exceeded $7.5 million, reports Ardmoreite.com. Most of that total comes from residential construction, with the bulk of it coming from just three homes. While Lance Windel Construction plans on building 46 homes, the top value of those homes will be $153,000. The total value for the homes being built by three other firms is more $6.4 million, and those contractors are building just one home each. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

ACS Obtains Overwhelming Jury Trial Victory for General Contractor Client

March 28, 2022 — Scott R. Sleight - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
ACS is pleased to share news of our recent $19.2 million victory for a general contractor client after a lengthy virtual jury trial involving the Nexus condominium project in downtown Seattle. On Tuesday March 22, 2022, ACS obtained a jury verdict awarding significant damages to our general contractor client and denying nearly all damages claimed against our client by the project owner. The 28-day jury trial commenced via Zoom on January 24 and involved testimony from more than two dozen witnesses on more than 185 discrete change issues and subcontractor pass-through claims as well as counterclaims from the owner for liquidated damages and other damages. Amazingly, after only two days of deliberating the jury reached a verdict resolving all claims overwhelmingly in favor of our general contractor client. Our client was awarded $19.5 million on its claims totaling $20.6 million and largely defeated the owner’s counterclaims of $4.3 million, with the jury awarding only $318,000 to the owner. This results in a net judgment of $19.2 million in favor of our client. The ACS team, along with the client, worked incredibly hard on this case. The team includes lawyers Scott Sleight, Saki Yamada, Kristina Southwell, Cam Sheldon and paralegals Christina Granquist, Cydney Fermstad, Auzree Hightower, Amy Capell, Samina Helsley and Bernadette Bresee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott R. Sleight, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Sleight may be contacted at scott.sleight@acslawyers.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES