Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

July 27, 2020 — Daniel F. Fears & Raymond J. Nhan - Payne & Fears
Businesses contemplating moving to a virtual workplace in this post-COVID-19 world must consider the legal ramifications of such decisions. Virtual workplaces may provide businesses with many benefits, such as cost savings, access to a more geographically diverse worker pool and the possibility of more flexible employment relationships. But a virtual workplace may also include hidden employment-related issues, costs, and traps. This is especially so for California-based companies. This article identifies some of the significant employment-law issues related to transitioning to a virtual workplace. Specifically, this article analyzes three scenarios: (1) employers seeking to have their workers continue working from home; (2) workers desiring to continue working from home — and specifically, seeking to work outside of California; and (3) the hiring of new employees. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. Fears, Payne & Fears and Raymond J. Nhan, Payne & Fears Mr. Fears may be contacted at dff@paynefears.com Mr. Nhan may be contacted at rjn@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Instructs Property Carriers to Advise Insureds on Business Interruption Coverage

April 13, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) took the unusual step last week of instructing all property/casualty insurers to provide information on commercial property insurance and details on business interruption coverage in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. The notice is here. The notice recognizes that policyholders have urgent questions about the business interruption coverage under their policies. Insurers must explain to policyholders the benefits under their policies and the protections provided in connection with COVID-19. The explanation to policyholders is to include the following relevant information.

What type of commercial property insurance or otherwise related insurance policy does the insured hold?

Does the insured's policy provide "business interruption" coverage? If so, provide the "covered perils" under such policy. Please also indicate whether the policy contains a requirement for "physical damage or loss" and explain whether contamination related to a pandemic may constitute "physical damage or loss." Please describe what type of damage or loss is sufficient for coverage under the policy.

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

"Ongoing Storm" Rules for the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York & Rhode Island)

February 22, 2021 — Angeline Ioannou, Kenneth Walton, Colin Hackett, Gregory Katz & Lauren Motola-Davis - Lewis Brisbois
The winter storm that recently brought several feet of snow to the Northeast signaled that we are, indeed, in the middle of winter. Moreover, our nation’s favorite groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, saw his shadow on Groundhog Day this year, indicating that winter will be with us for six more weeks. As we move through the remainder of this snowy season, it is important for businesses to understand their legal obligations concerning snow removal and the defenses that are available to them in the event that an injury occurs on their premises. This alert summarizes the ongoing storm rules in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, and analyzes property owners’ snow removal responsibilities as well as related premises liability issues under these states’ laws. Connecticut It is well settled in Connecticut that, in the absence of unusual circumstances, in fulfilling their duty to invitees on their property, property owners may wait a reasonable time after the conclusion of a storm to perform ice and snow removal from outside walkways and steps. Kraus v. Newton, 211 Conn. 191, 197-198 (1989). A property owner’s duty to perform reasonable snow and ice removal of outside walkways does not arise until after a reasonable period of time has passed after a storm ends. Umsteadt v. G.R. Realty, 123 Conn. App. 73, 83 (2010). The ongoing storm doctrine does not apply, however, if the defective condition arises from preexisting ice or snow, and not from the ongoing storm. Whether the alleged defective condition was caused by preexisting ice or snow and whether a storm has concluded are both questions of fact that may be decided by a jury. Kraus at 197-198. Reprinted courtesy of Angeline Ioannou, Lewis Brisbois, Kenneth Walton, Lewis Brisbois, Colin Hackett, Lewis Brisbois, Gregory Katz, Lewis Brisbois and Lauren Motola-Davis, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Ioannou may be contacted at Angeline.Ioannou@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Walton may be contacted at Ken.Walton@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Hackett may be contacted at Colin.Hackett@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Katz may be contacted at Greg.Katz@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Motola-Davis may be contacted at Lauren.MotolaDavis@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Attorney’s Fees Entitlement And Application Under Subcontract Default Provision

May 06, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Many subcontracts contain a provision in the default section that reads something to the effect: “Upon any default, Subcontractor shall pay to Contractor its attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in enforcing this Subcontract or seeking any remedies hereunder.” Oftentimes, a party may wonder as to the enforceability of the provision and how it is applied in the context of a dispute between a contractor and its subcontractor where both parties have asserted claims against the other. In an opinion out of the Middle District of Georgia, U.S. f/u/b/o Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. Stellar Group, Inc., 2019 WL 338887 (M.D.Ga. 2019), a subcontractor and prime contractor on a federal construction project each asserted claims against the other in the approximate amount of $4 Million, meaning there was a potential $8 Million swing in the dispute. The subcontract contained a provision entitling the contractor to recover attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing the subcontract or seeking remedies under the subcontract upon any default, identical to the provision above. 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

Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing

September 12, 2022 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Smith v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142262, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiffs’ liability expert met the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and could testify that a filter pump for an aquarium tank was defectively designed and caused a fire at the plaintiffs’ home. The defendant filed a motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ liability expert on grounds that the expert’s opinion did not satisfy the reliability element of Rule 702 because the expert never conducted physical testing on the filter pump. The court found that the cognitive testing employed by the expert through various methods, including visual inspections of the evidence, a review of photographs of the scene and literature from the manufacturer, and research on similar products, was sufficiently reliable to admit his opinion. The Smith case involved a civil action brought by Jeanette Scicchitano Smith and Alexander Smith that arose from a 2019 fire at their residence in Lincoln University, Pennsylvania. The fire purportedly started in a filter pump, which was operating at the time of the fire, that the plaintiffs purchased in 2002 as part of an aquarium tank kit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Defective Sprinklers Not Cause of Library Flooding

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Sprinklers are important in any public building, but libraries with their large collections of nicely flammable paper. Of course, you also want to keep those books dry. The Hilton Head Island library investigated its sprinklers after a malfunctioning sprinkler head flooded the Friends of the Library bookshop, ruining thousands of books. The investigation found that, apart from the malfunction, the sprinklers had a defect that could have lead to their failure to operate in the event of a fire. The sprinklers had been the subject of a voluntary recall in 2001, however the 220 sprinkler heads were not replaced at that time. The county claimed that they were unaware of the recall at the time, and so failed to take advantage of program under which the manufacturer would pay for the recall. That program ended in 2007. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

NYPD Investigating Two White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge

July 23, 2014 — Chris Dolmetsch – Bloomberg
The New York City Police Department is trying to figure out who replaced the American flags that fly atop the Brooklyn Bridge with white banners. The replacement flags were discovered this morning on the towers at opposite ends of the bridge, where the Stars and Stripes are normally displayed, and were removed, police said. The NYPD’s Counterterrorism Bureau and Emergency Service Unit are probing the incident and reviewing surveillance video to determine who replaced the flags and when the act took place, police said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg
Mr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net

Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

June 18, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES