Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
California recently passed AB 1794, which authorized the Employment Development Department to share information it received on new hires with other agencies. The bill also allows the Contractors State License Board to audit members based on this information to determine if contractors are engaging in workers’ compensation fraud. Writing on the Cumming & White construction litigation blog, Iman Reza notes that “the new law is intended to deter contractors from cutting corners in underreporting employees.” The CSLB will be able to discipline contractors who seek to gain an illegitimate competitive advantage by circumventing the law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Contractors: Amended Section 7141.5 Provides Important License Renewal Safety Net

July 25, 2021 — Amy L. Pierce, Mark A. Oertel, John Lubitz & Adam B. Wiens - Lewis Brisbois
Under California’s Contractors State License Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7000 et seq., contractors’ licenses expire two years from the last day of the month in which the license was issued or two years from the date on which the renewed license last expired. The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) sends licensees a renewal application 60 to 90 days in advance of the date the license is set to expire. Even with various controls in place, mistakes happen and a renewal application filing deadline can be missed. During the August 5-6, 2019 Executive, Licensing, and Legislative Committee Meetings, the CSLB discussed proposed amendments to Section 7141.5 to reduce both the burden on it to review applications for retroactive renewal of a license that had not been timely submitted and to provide contractors with some relief from the high burden to establish “the failure to renew was due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.” Not long after, the CSLB’s Board of Directors gave staff approval to seek an author for the bill and, on September 29, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1474 into law, which includes the CSLB’s proposed amendments to Section 7141.5, effective January 1, 2021. Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Lewis Brisbois, Mark A. Oertel, Lewis Brisbois, John Lubitz, Lewis Brisbois and Adam B. Wiens, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Pierce may be contacted at Amy.Pierce@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Oertel may be contacted at Mark.Oertel@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Lubitz may be contacted at John.Lubitz@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Wiens may be contacted at Adam.Wiens@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites

December 30, 2019 — Newmeyer Dillion
Newmeyer Dillion, a prominent business and real estate law firm, is pleased to announce that, on November 18, 2019, the City Council of the City of Piedmont unanimously voted to approve the installation of 17 small cell wireless telecommunications sites by Newmeyer Dillion client Crown Castle NG West LLC, the leading provider of shared communications infrastructure in the United States. This victory ends a long-running legal dispute over Crown Castle's small cell wireless network, which was vehemently opposed by Piedmont residents and previously rejected by the City Council, prompting Newmeyer Dillion to bring a lawsuit against the city in 2017. The dispute began in 2016 when Crown Castle filed an application with the City Council of the City of Piedmont to build nine small cell wireless sites designed to provide critical wireless telecommunications coverage in Piedmont. In October 2017, the Council denied the network, rejecting some of the proposed sites or approving others with onerous conditions. Newmeyer Dillion's Government, Land Use and Environmental practice group filed a lawsuit on behalf of Crown Castle in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in November 2017, challenging the Council's decision. Drawing from the language established in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the lawsuit alleged that Piedmont's ordinances established an unreasonably high bar of approval, unlawfully prohibiting telecommunications services in the city. The city quickly requested a court-supervised settlement, which was approved by the City Council in December 2018 and allowed Crown Castle to reapply to build 17 small cell wireless telecommunications facilities. The unanimous City Council approval came after extensive mediation work between the two parties. "We are excited that our years-long efforts have culminated in this major win for Crown Castle, allowing them to build out critical telecommunications infrastructure in the City of Piedmont," said Michael Shonafelt, partner at Newmeyer Dillion. "With the growing national need for robust telecommunications networks that can handle voice communication and modern data demands, approvals such as this are significant, not just for the community the network serves, but for the viability of the national telecommunications network as a whole. Our team is proud to be using our multidisciplinary, business-oriented approach to successfully advise clients navigating these issues." About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of corporate, privacy & data security, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, Newmeyer Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

October 16, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In 2010, the Virginia Supreme Court held in Uniwest Const., Inc. v. Amtech Elevator Servs., Inc., that Va. Code Sec. 11-4.1 renders completely void and unenforceable any indemnification provision in a construction contract between a contractor and subcontractor that seeks to indemnify the indemnified party from its own negligent acts. In short, the Virginia Supreme Court stated that such overly broad provisions violate Section 11-4.1. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia Federal District Court examined a provision in a contract between a designer/architect and a contractor or owner on a project. In Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Lessard Design Inc. the Court examined the application of Section 11-4.1 to the following provision of a design contract where Lessard, the indemnitor, agreed to:

[i]ndemnify, defend and hold the Owner, Owner’s Developer, and Owner’s and Owner’s Developer’s wholly owned affiliates and the agents, employees and officers of any of them harmless from and against any and all losses, liabilities, expenses, claims, fines and penalties, costs and expenses, including, but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs relating to the services performed by the Architect hereunder . . .

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

December 27, 2021 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The General Rule in California: The Winner Does NOT Receive Attorney Fees and Costs: There is a common misconception that court decisions require the loser in a lawsuit to reimburse the winner for the fees and costs incurred during the lawsuit. Reliance on this misconception in developing a legal strategy for dealing with disputes is a serious strategic error. Where the legal issue is, for example, “breach of contract,” the general rule in California is that there are only two methods by which the winning litigant will be awarded the attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing or defending the lawsuit. The first of these is if the contract in question contains an effective attorney fee clause specifically providing that the prevailing party will recover their attorney fees and costs. The second is if there is a statute on point which provides that the prevailing party will be awarded those fees and costs. The general rule in California is that each party pays their own attorney fees and costs, unless there is an independent legal basis that provides otherwise. This is known as the “American Rule,” used throughout most of the country. The Issue is Important Because Spending More Money Than You Can Be Awarded is a Losing Strategy: The importance of whether the prevailing party in a lawsuit will be awarded their fees and costs cannot be underestimated. The party contemplating whether to bring a lawsuit must seriously consider whether it is even worth the trouble. In many cases, unless the one bringing the lawsuit (the “plaintiff”) is entitled to be reimbursed for the considerable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the case, it is just not worth doing so. There is no point spending $50,000 on attorneys on a $40,000 claim unless the plaintiff can be awarded both the $40,000 and the $50,000 if the plaintiff wins. Unless fees and costs are awarded, the plaintiff will still be out $10,000 in the very best of cases. For a party sued (the “defendant”) a similar situation arises in that the defendant faces the reality that it may be less expensive to just pay on a frivolous or false claim than to fight it. Either scenario is unsatisfactory. On the whole, it is beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract when either a plaintiff or a defendant must vindicate its rights. Both deserve to be fully compensated to achieve justice. It is also beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract to encourage the one who is at fault to resolve the case rather than risk paying the fees and costs of the other party who is likely to win the case. In either case, the presence of an attorney fee clause facilitates the party in the right and encourages resolution outside of litigation. These are admirable societal goals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans for Contractors: Lessons From the Past

November 28, 2022 — Rich Sghiatti - Construction Executive
There is no shortage of natural disasters to illustrate the importance of being prepared. Wildfires, hurricanes, winter storms and floods can hit a construction job site hard. Appropriate property-casualty insurance and surety bonds are necessary protections for a contractor and project owner. But the addition of well-thought-out continuity and disaster recovery plans will better position the contractor to deal with whatever Mother Nature brings. Consider Hurricane Katrina, the costliest hurricane to hit the United States. Pummeling Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi in August 2005, the storm led to 1,833 fatalities and an estimated $108 billion in damages. Levees meant to protect New Orleans from Lake Pontchartrain did not hold, flooding 80% of the city. Utilities including power, water and sanitary sewers were severely damaged. Homes were destroyed. Roadways were closed. Communications systems were down. Contractors who had good business continuity and disaster recovery plans fared better than those who did not. Reprinted courtesy of Rich Sghiatti, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

April 03, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Florida law firm of Williams Law Association reminds readers that under the law, homeowners “cannot immediately file a lawsuit against their contractor if they subsequently discover construction defects.” The contractor must first have a chance to fix the defect. Further, there is a waiting period between informing the contractor and actually filing the lawsuit. For individual homeowners, that wait is 60 days, but for associations of more than 20 parcels, it’s 120 days. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

On to Year Thirteen for Blog

January 13, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Insurance Law Hawaii hits twelve years of existence this week, 1347 posts later. We started in December 2007. We continue in order to keep up on developing issues in insurance law. We strive to keep readers abreast of new developments in cases from Hawaii and across the country. Other Damon Key blogs to check out are inversecomdemnation.com [here] authored by Robert Thomas, Mark Murakami's oceanlawhawaii.com [here] and hawaiiconstructionlaw.com [here] by Anna Oshiro. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES