Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

October 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
You may know this situation all too well. You’ve submitted your certified claim to the contracting officer and there it sits. You ask for a decision and they say soon, but it’s not soon. And pretty soon, several months have gone by. Since the Court of Federal Claims’ decision in Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. v. U.S., the government may have to decide in 60 days or your claim will be deemed denied which would allow you to file your claim in the Court of Federal Claims. Background Rudolph and Sletten (R&S) were awarded a contract to construct the La Jolla Laboratory. On August 20, 2013, R&S submitted a certified claim seeking $26,809,003 as compensation for costs due to alleged government-caused delays and disruption, additional consultant costs and extra work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

January 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
If you are a construction attorney like me (or anyone that takes cases to court), you deal with statutes of limitation on a daily basis. These statutes seem pretty simple. A party has “X” amount of time in which to file its lawsuit after accural of the cause of action. In a breach of contract suit, the accrual is the date of breach. Easy, right? Wrong, at least in some circumstances. Take for example, the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. PAE Applied Techs., LLC out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this unpublished opinion the Court looked at “continuous breach” versus “series of separate breaches.” The basic facts are that in 2000 Flour entered into a contract with PAE whereby PAE requested and claims to have received consent from Flour to a 2.3% administrative cost cap on Flour’s work on an Air Force contract. Flour claimed that it did not agree to this cap. In 2002, Flour begain billing PAE for its costs plus the 2.3% administrative markup and billed in this fashion for the first full year. However, in subsequent years and for the next 11 years, Flour billed PAE at a higher markup rate than the 2.3%. PAE disputed the increased markup and paid Flour at the 2.3% rate. Flour periodically protested but made no move to court until it filed suit in March of 2016. After a bench trial, the district court found that Flour had agreed to the cap and found for PAE. 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

No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

March 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit held there was no duty to defend an additional insured for alleged negligence after completion of the project. Woodward v. Acceptance Indemn. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2569 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2014). Pass Marianne, L.L.C. contracted for the construction of condominiums. The general contractor was Woodward. DCM Corporation, L.L.C. was a subcontractor for the concrete work. DCM worked on the project from January to October 2006. The entire project was completed in August 2007. Pass Marianne sold the condominiums to Lemon Drop Properties in October 2007. Lemon Drop sued Pass Marianne and Woodward a year after purchasing the condominium. Pass Marianne filed a cross-claim against Woodward alleging faulty construction and damage arising out of the construction. The claims were arbitrated. A significant issue in the arbitration was the fault of the concrete subcontractor, DCM. 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

Will European Insurers’ Positive Response to COVID-19 Claims Influence US Insurers?

August 10, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Last month we wrote a piece concerning AXA’s agreement to pay COVID-19 related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in France after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under its insurance policies. AXA reportedly has already agreed to pay over 200 COVID-19 related claims. Another European insurer recently made headlines for similar reasons. Despite initially denying liability, Swiss insurance company, Helvetia Insurance, announced that most of its policyholders in the hospitality industry have accepted settlements following coverage disputes for COVID-19 related business interruption losses. The settlements reportedly included policyholders from Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. The positive response from the European insurers appears to have influenced the insurance industry across the continent. For instance, in the U.K., the Financial Conduct Authority announced that it is taking certain insurers to court to seek clarity as to coverage for COVID-19 related losses. In Germany, the government and a group of insurers reached an agreement whereby the government will pay for 70% of business interruption losses for policyholders in the hospitality industry, and the insurers will pay for half of the business interruption losses not covered by the government. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A sting operation conducted in Rancho Murieta, California on January 16th by the Statewide Investigative Fraud Team, with assistance from the state Department of Consumer Affairs Division of Investigation netted “11 people accused of illegal, unlicensed home improvement contracting,” reported the Merced Sun-Star. The news source stated that “the statewide drought” provided “a new angle in approaching conservation-minded property owners, according to the Contractors State License Board.” The accusations included “illegal contracting after seeking bids for exterior painting, fencing and landscaping jobs,” according to the Merced Sun-Star. The eleven individuals received notices to appear in Sacramento Superior Court for arraignment March 27th. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Public Law Center Honors Snell & Wilmer Partner Sean M. Sherlock As Volunteers For Justice Attorney Of The Year

June 10, 2019 — Sean M. Sherlock – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce the Public Law Center (PLC) has named Orange County partner Sean M. Sherlock as the 2019 Volunteers for Justice Attorney of the Year. Sherlock donates his time and knowledge to his community through his pro bono work with PLC. From 2015 to earlier this year he headed a team of attorneys who represented an elderly PLC client in danger of losing her mobile home. The client is the primary caregiver for her disabled grandson who survives solely on a fixed income of disability and Social Security, causing her to fall behind on her space rent for her mobile home. In addition to pro bono work, Sherlock is an avid community volunteer, spending his time supporting organizations that have included Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Orange County Coastkeeper, AYSO and the Boy Scouts of America. “One of the most rewarding aspects of being an attorney is being able to obtain justice for the vulnerable and defenseless in our society who would otherwise be unable to navigate our legal system,” said Sherlock. “My relationship with the PLC has given me many opportunities to do some very gratifying work, and it is a real pleasure working with and learning from the excellent staff attorneys at PLC.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants

October 26, 2020 — Amber Karns & Dan Pipitone - Construction Executive
The commercial construction contracting and subcontracting industry in general is unique under the law for industry professionals, as they’re typically limited to wage and hour litigation under provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The majority of FLSA cases seek class action status or collective classification, while other FLSA litigation is initiated by individuals seeking damages. For the former, past and current employees can opt into class action litigation and seek collective damages against a construction company. The looming financial burden of class action or collective litigation against construction companies consume time, money and resources to the extent it’s often advisable for Defendants to negotiate an unfair settlement. Yet, thanks to a recent federal court decision on March 27, 2020, the legal maneuvering behind unreasonable Plaintiff demands may soon be counter-balanced by the class action Defendants’ right to due process review. A recent legal opinion in a recent FLSA case has potentially wide-ranging implications for Defendant employers mired in future class action litigation. Moreover, as the FLSA applies to all employers, this decision potentially applies to all ownership groups representing the commercial construction industry, extending to partners, contractors and subcontractors. Reprinted courtesy of Amber Karns & Dan Pipitone, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Pipitone may be contacted at dpipitone@munsch.com Ms. Karns may be contacted at akarns@munsch.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?

February 19, 2024 — Sofya Uvaydov & John F. Watkins - Kahana Feld
In 2021, Mark Perez’ Labor Law 240(1) lawsuit made legal news by breaking the record of the highest appellate-sustained pain and suffering award in New York history. While that record was short-lived, it still maintains its place as New York’s highest-ever pain and suffering award for a brain injury. This January 17th, the Appellate Division, First Department revisited the litigation but, this time, in a dispute between Perez and his then-lawyer, Ben Morelli and the Morelli Law Firm. Mr. Perez claims breach of contract over a 10% additional contingency fee charge related to the Perez v. Live Nation appeal and breach of fiduciary duty by his counsel in failing to convey settlement offers during the lifetime of the case. The Morelli firm counters, among other things, that the prior settlement offers – a $30 million offer during the 2019 trial and intermediate sums during the appellate stage – were still lower than the ultimate $55 million settlement. No harm, Mr. Morelli argues, and thus no foul in failing to convey the offers. But is that so? Did Mark Perez ultimately receive more money in his $55 million settlement than from the $30 million settlement offer mid-trial? Despite the glaring $25 million difference, the surprising calculations show that Perez would have been financially better off taking the $30 million mid-trial settlement. Reprinted courtesy of Sofya Uvaydov, Kahana Feld and John F. Watkins, Kahana Feld Ms. Uvaydov may be contacted at suvaydov@kahanafeld.com Mr. Watkins may be contacted at jwatkins@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES