SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Manhattan, New York, a “Supreme Court judge partially granted a temporary restraining order to Africa Israel,” which “means the developer does not at this time have to cede control of the Downtown Condominium board to unit owners, following a February lawsuit against the developers by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,” according to The Real Deal. The condominium battle began after Schneiderman filed suit against the developers, claiming that they did not fix construction defects, which in turn caused them to fail to obtain a certificate of occupancy, reported The Real Deal. The attorney general “also alleged that the pair misappropriated more than $9 million placed in an escrow account to finance those repairs.” However, according to The Real Deal, Africa Israel has claimed not to be a sponsor of the building. “Attorney Aaron Abraham, representing both Africa Israel and the sponsor of 15 Broad, claimed …that Africa Israel, an Israeli development firm led by billionaire Lev Leviev, never signed any documents claiming to be a sponsor of the building, noting that the sponsor principals were Boymelgreen and Pinchas Cohen.” Steve Sladkus, attorney for the condominium unit owners, told The Real Deal, “They partnered up with Boymelgreen — they need to deal with the fallout of that.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds $400 Million Award for Superstorm Sandy Damages

February 22, 2021 — Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London,1 New Jersey’s highest court upheld an appellate decision2 finding that New Jersey Transit Corporation (“NJT”) was entitled to full coverage under its property insurance policy for damages caused by Superstorm Sandy. In July 2012, NJT secured a multi-layered “all risks” property insurance program from eleven insurers for the policy period of July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2013. The policies covered all perils and damage to NJT’s property unless specifically excluded. The primary layer, issued by Lexington Insurance Company, provided the first $50 million of coverage. The second layer provided coverage up to $100 million, the third layer provided an additional $175 million, and the fourth layer provided coverage of $125 million, for a total of $400 million in coverage. The excess layer insurers included Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Torus Specialty Insurance Company, and several other carriers. All participating insurers’ policies included a standard policy form and separate endorsements, some of which were included in all policies and some of which were unique to specific insurers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kkane@sdvlaw.com

---

Proving Impacts to Critical Path to Defeat Liquidated Damages Assessment

December 16, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a contractor is staring down the barrel of an owner’s assessment of liquidated damages, the burden will fall on the contractor to establish that the delay was attributable to the owner and the owner’s agents. The contractor will want to do this not only to defeat the assessment of liquidated damages, but because it will want to establish that the delay caused it to incur extended field overhead (general conditions) for which the owner is responsible. A contractor supports its burden by proving the impacts to its critical path. “In general, proving an allegation of government-caused delays without a means of showing the critical path is a steep prospect.” James Talcott Construction v. U.S., 2019 WL 1040383, *8 (Fed. Cl. 2019) (unreported opinion) (finding that because contractor did NOT present a critical path analysis it could not support its claim for delay caused by the government). Avoiding the assessment of liquidated damages means the contractor needs to support that it encountered excusable delay and it is/was entitled to an extension of time to complete the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Existing U.S. Home Sales Rise to Second-Highest Since 2007

October 28, 2015 — Victoria Stilwell – Bloomberg
Sales of previously owned U.S. homes rebounded in September to the second-highest level since February 2007, the latest sign that the recovery in residential real estate will support growth in the world’s largest economy. Closings on existing homes, which usually occur a month or two after a contract is signed, climbed 4.7 percent to a 5.55 million annualized rate, the National Association of Realtors said Thursday. The increase was entirely due to a jump in purchases of single-family dwellings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg

---

Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

April 28, 2014 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”). In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

November 08, 2017 — Samantha M. Martino – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On October 4, the Second Circuit held that Harleysville Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify a project owner or general contractor as additional insureds under a sub-subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy due to lack of direct contractual privity. 1 The underlying claim arose when an employee of The Kimmell Company, Inc. (Kimmell) was injured while repairing an HVAC system at a building owned by the University of Rochester Medical Center (UR). The injured employee sought damages for his injuries and fi led suit against (1) UR; (2) LeChase Construction Corp. (LeChase), the general contractor for the project; and (3) J.T. Mauro Co. Inc. (Mauro), a subcontractor hired by LeChase. Mauro hired Kimmell as a sub-subcontractor to perform HVAC services at the project. The Mauro-Kimmel contract required Kimmel to add Mauro, UR, and LeChase as additional insureds under Kimmell’s CGL policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

---

Fifth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Award to Insurer on Hurricane Damage Claim

December 18, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer on a property damage claim arising from Hurricane Harvey. Advanced Indicator and Manufacturing, Inc. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 50 F.4th 469 (2022). After Hurricane Harvey struck southern Texas in 2017, Advanced submitted a claim to Acadia for damage to its building that it claimed was caused by the hurricane's winds. Acadia sent an adjuster, Nick Warren, as well as an engineer, Jason Watson. Watson determined that pre-existing conditions - including ongoing leaks from deterioration and poor workmanship - caused the damage, rather than winds from Hurricane Harvey. Warren adopted these conclusions in his recommendations to Acadia. Acadia denied Advanced's claim based on these reports. Advanced sued Acadia, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Advanced filed a motion to remand to state court which was denied. Acadia moved for summary judgment arguing that it did not breach the policy and that Advanced could not segregate any damages caused by hurricane from pre-existing damage. The district court granted Acadia's motion, finding that Acadia's denial of Advanced's claim was based on "extensive consideration of the evidence." Further, Advanced failed to carry its burden of showing that covered and non-covered damages could be segregated as required by Texas's concurrent causation doctrine. Finally, the bad faith claim was dismissed because there was no breach of contract. 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

---

Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

October 12, 2020 — Todd Likman - Colorado Construction Litigation
As is often the case in construction defect and other insurance defense litigation, a plaintiff’s claims for relief typically encompass both covered and uncovered damages. Obviously, it is in the insured’s best interests to have as many damages covered by insurance as possible. From the insurer’s perspective and against the backdrop of owing duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insureds, however, it is generally better to have an allocation of covered vs. non-covered damages. This places the insurer, insured, and insurance retained defense counsel in a difficult position. A recent opinion from U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Rockhill Ins. Co. v. CFI-Global Fisheries Mgmt, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-02760-RM-MJW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35209 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2020), sheds light on the issue, even though some may feel it only further muddies already murky waters. Rockhill involved review of an arbitration proceeding that property-owner, Heirloom I, LLC (“Heirloom”) filed against CFI-Global Fisheries Management (“CFI”). Rockhill Insurance Company (“Rockhill Insurance”) was asked to defend the arbitration as CFI’s professional and general liability insurer. At issue in the arbitration was Heirloom’s claim that CFI defectively designed and constructed a fisheries enhancement that was destroyed by natural processes four times in three years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Todd Likman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. Likman may be contacted at likman@hhmrlaw.com

---