Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Cold and wet weather was not bad news for the lumber industry. The weather in the first quarter set or tied records for both precipitation and low temperatures. Not good weather for building. Construction was delayed as a result, leading to less call for lumber. In response, there was a 15 percent drop in lumber futures, continuing a decline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Microsoft Urges the Construction Industry to Deliver Lifecycle Value

June 25, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Digitalization is changing the way that we operate and use buildings. Salla Palos is directing Microsoft towards a future that inspires innovative changes in both the mindset and the business models of AECO industry stakeholders. Salla Palos moved from Finland to the United States in July 2015 and settled down in Seattle, one of the fastest growing areas in the USA. She was versed in digitalization of construction industry in Finland as well as Europe and sought the opportunity to bring that knowledge into the US market. As the Director of Emerging Technology and Innovation for Sellen Construction, one of the largest general contractor companies in the Pacific Northwest United States, Salla started developing digital building lifecycle as a strategy to solve number of industry problems. “I zeroed in on developing digital construction strategy, re-engineering processes, and innovating how emerging technology supports digital construction. My approach was open innovation, pulling the industry along with our own digital transformation. I set up collaboration with both local and international partners to be successful in driving change and transforming AEC,” Salla recalls. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

June 13, 2018 — Richard Borden, Sedgwick Jeanite & Joshua Mooney - White and Williams LLP
The ramp-up of cybersecurity regulation, albeit in a patchwork fashion through state-level legislation, has begun. On May 18, 2018, South Carolina enacted the Insurance Data Security Act (Act), becoming the first state to pass legislation based upon the Insurance Data Security Model Law that was approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) last October. The Act makes very little change to the model law’s text, which in turn, is based on 23 NYCRR § 500, et seq., the cybersecurity regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Financial Services in March 2017. The Act establishes stringent standards for both data security programs, and an entity’s response to a “cybersecurity event” through an organized and methodical investigation and notification to the state’s Department of Insurance. Like New York’s cybersecurity regulations, the Act requires insurers to submit to the Department of Insurance annual certification of compliance and has a ratcheted implementation of portions of the legislation on insurers and brokers operating or otherwise licensed to do business in the state. It does not create a private cause of action. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Richard Borden, Sedgwick Jeanite and Joshua Mooney Mr. Borden may be contacted at bordenr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jeanite may be contacted at jeanites@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Mooney may be contacted at mooneyj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing

April 12, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have often discussed the limited circumstances under which a construction contract claim and a fraud claim can coexist. A recent case from the Western District of Virginia federal court demonstrates that care is necessary even in those limited circumstances. In Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys., the Court examined the question of a fraud statute of limitations under Virginia law. The basic facts found in the Complaint are these: In 2011, the United States Army awarded BAE Systems Ordinance Systems Inc. a basic ordering agreement under which BAE was responsible for modernization projects at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant. This action stems from a subcontract between Fluor Federal Solutions LLC and BAE, under which Fluor agreed to design and construct a new natural gas boiler at the plant. Fluor has completed work on the project, and BAE has accepted that work. Nonetheless, Fluor claims that BAE has refused or failed to pay for the balance of the project costs. Fluor alleges that BAE received several changes to its prime contract from the Army but did not pass those changes along to Fluor until after BAE solicited a bid from Fluor and entered a contract with Fluor to build a temporary facility. Instead, BAE continued to misrepresent the scope of the project. Fluor alleges that the change in plans increased costs substantially, but that BAE withheld information about those changes so that it could solicit lower bids. Fluor alleges that it requested a copy of BAE’s prime contract on numerous occasions, but BAE failed to provide a copy of it. Instead, Fluor submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act. It received a copy of BAE’s prime contract on Oct. 3, 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Homebuilder Immunity Act Dies in Committee. What's Next?

May 07, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
For the third straight year, the Colorado legislature has rejected efforts by the homebuilders’ lobby to provide virtual immunity for construction defects and property damage. Late Monday night, the House committee on State, Military, and Veterans Affairs voted down Senate Bill 15-177 on straight party lines. All six Democrats on the committee voted against the bill, while all five Republicans voted for it. Similar bills had died in the Senate in 2013 and 2014. In theory, SB177 would have boosted multifamily construction by shielding builders from liability for negligent work. Unlike the 2013 bill, this version never expressly stated that it was providing homebuilders with immunity, but it would have made it nearly impossible for community associations to take action against a builder who refused to honor a warranty. And even if the homeowners managed to overcome the procedural obstacles, the bill would have forced their claims into costly, private arbitration. Proponents hoped that, by eliminating responsibility for negligent work and property damage, they could entice homebuilders to construct more cheap condominiums. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net

Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

November 23, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Recently, I read an informative article from another attorney addressing considerations of an owner when it receives a repair protocol in response to a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of defect letter. This is a well-written article and raises two important issues applicable to construction defect disputes: 1) how is an owner supposed to respond to a repair protocol submitted by a contractor in accordance with Florida’s 558 notice of construction defects procedure and 2) irrespective of Florida’s 558 procedure, how is an owner supposed to treat a contractual notice to cure / notice of defect requirement that requires the owner to give the contractor a notice to cure a defect. This article raises such pertinent points that I wanted to address the issues and topics raised in this article. 558 Procedure–Owner’s Receipt of Contractor’s Repair Protocol When a contractor submits a repair protocol to an owner in response to a notice of construction defects letter per Florida Statutes Chapter 558, the owner should seriously consider that protocol. The owner does this by discussing with counsel and any retained expert. The owner needs to know whether the protocol is a reasonable, cost-effective protocol to repair the asserted defects or, alternatively, whether the protocol is merely a band-aid approach and/or otherwise insufficiently addresses the claimed defects. Every scenario is different. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals in Stanislaus County has reversed the decision of the lower court in Greg Opinski Construction Inc. v. City of Oakdale. The earlier court had awarded the city of judgment of $54,000 for late completion, $3,266 for repair of construction defects and interest, and $97,775 in attorneys’ fees. The late completion of the project was due to actions by the City of Oakdale, however, the court rejected Opinski’s argument that the California Supreme Court decision in Kiewit did not allow this, as his contract with the city established a procedure for claiming extensions.

The appeals court noted that the Kiewit decision has been “criticized as an unwarranted interference in the power of contracting parties to shift the risk of delays caused by one party onto the other party by forcing the second party to give the first notice of any intention to claim an extension of time based on delays caused by first.” They cited Sweet, a professor at Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school, that Kiewit “gutted” the “provision that conditions the contractor’s right to claim an extension of time for delays beyond his control.”

Further changes in California law in response to the Kiewit decision lead to the current situation which the court characterized as “if the contractor wished to claim it needed an extension of time because of delays caused by the city, the contractor was required to obtain a written change order by mutual consent or submit a claim in writing requesting a formal decision by the engineer.”

Opinski also argued that the lower court misinterpreted the contract. The Appeals court replied that “Opinski is mistaken.” He cited parts of the contract regarding the increase of time, but the court rejected these, noting that “an inability to agree is not the same as an express rejection.”

The court also rejects Opinski’s appeal that “the evidence the project was complete earlier than September 30, 2005, is weightier than the evidence to the contrary,” which they describe as “not a winning appellate argument.” The court points out that the role of an appeals court is not to reweigh the evidence, but to determine “whether the record contains substantial evidence in support of the judgment.”

The court did side with Opinski on one question of the escrow account. They rejected most of his arguments, repeating the line “Opinski is mistaken” several times. They decided that he was mistaken on the timing of the setoff decision and on whether the city was the prevailing party. However, the appeals court did find that Opinski was not liable for interest on the judgment.

The appeals court rejected the awarding of prejudgment interest to the city as the funds from which the judgment was drawn was held in an escrow account. The court noted that the city had access to the funds and could “access the funds when it determined that Opinski had breached the contract.” The appeals court noted that the judgment exhausted the escrow balance and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the amount own to Opinski.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Price Escalation Impacts

August 22, 2022 — Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
This Bulletin provides guidance to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others to ensure compliance with contractual change order requirements in the event work on a construction project is impacted by price escalation. Construction projects are being impacted by increased costs for most construction materials. The Producer Price Index shows a 69% increase in the cost of construction materials from March 2020 to March 2022. Many construction contracts do not address escalation or specifically exclude change orders for material escalation, leaving the risk of escalation of construction materials with the contractor, subcontractor, or suppliers. Bid Protection Tips:

Keep bids open for less than 30 days with a designated sunset date:

Keeping your bids open for less than 30 days can help protect you from sudden changes in pricing and help maintain your bids’ competitive status.
If asked to extend time a bid is open, reconfirm prices before agreeing.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Ms. Motta may be contacted at dmotta@grsm.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES