Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract

May 10, 2022 — Ted Senet & Christopher Trembley - Gibbs Giden
California local public agencies and their contractors should take note of a recent appellate decision pertaining to late progress payments on public works projects. In Clark Bros., Inc. v. North Edwards Water Dist., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 331, filed on April 22, 2022, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that a local agency’s late progress payments to a general contractor did not constitute breach of contract under the prompt payment penalty statute, Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Notwithstanding this holding, the contractor recovered damages, interest, fees, and costs in excess of its contract amount. In 2013, the North Edwards Water District awarded a $6.2 million contract to Clark Bros., Inc. to construct a water treatment facility. The District’s water contained excessive levels of arsenic, and the project was sponsored by the State of California with funds earmarked to provide safe drinking water. The State agreed to disburse funds to the District during construction upon the State’s review and approval of the contractor’s progress payment applications. The contract required completion of the work within one year following the District’s issuance of a notice to proceed to the contractor. As a result of factors arguably outside the control of the contractor, including unforeseen site conditions and the failure of the District’s equipment supplier to meet delivery deadlines, the project was significantly delayed beyond the deadline for completion. The District nonetheless terminated the contractor, which in turn filed suit against the District and the State. The contractor asserted claims for breach of contract, including breach of contract for the District’s failure to pay the contractor’s progress payment applications within the time specified under Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Subsection (b) of the statute provides:

Any local agency which fails to make any progress payment within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from a contractor on a construction contract shall pay interest to the contractor equivalent to the legal rate set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 685.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Reprinted courtesy of Ted Senet, Gibbs Giden and Christopher Trembley, Gibbs Giden Mr. Senet may be contacted at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com Mr. Trembley may be contacted at Ctrembley@gibbsgiden.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Managers, Are You Exposing Yourselves to Labor Law Liability?

February 22, 2021 — Timothy P. Welch - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
When dealing with construction site accidents, who a party is matters. Under Labor Law sections 200, 240(1) and 241(6) owners, contractors, and their agents have a non-delegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection to workers from risks inherent at work sites, with a specific emphasis placed on elevation-related hazards. Given the near strict liability nature of Labor Law section 240(1), it is critical to identify whether a party is a proper Labor Law defendant from the get-go. While identifying the owner (and usually the contractor) may be relatively straightforward, identifying “their agents” has proven to be a more complex undertaking. It should be noted that the requirements set forth in the Labor Law are non-delegable from the standpoint of the owner or contractor, however, the duties themselves can be assigned to “agents” of an owner or “agents” of a contractor. When such an assignment occurs, the same non-delegable duty held by the owner or contractor is imposed on the agents as well. Moreover, “once an entity becomes an agent under the Labor Law it cannot escape liability to an injured plaintiff by delegating the work to another entity.[1]” An entity that often skirts the line between being an agent and not, is the Construction Manager. Traditionally, the Construction Manager has been found to be outside the purview of the Labor Law when its scope of work is narrowly focused on scheduling and general coordination of the construction process. However, when a Construction Manager’s scope expands, so does its risk that it may, in fact, become a proper Labor Law defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy P. Welch, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
Mr. Welch may be contacted at tpw@hurwitzfine.com

NY Construction Safety Firm Falsely Certified Workers, Says Manhattan DA

March 25, 2024 — Johanna Knapschaefer - Engineering News-Record
A New York-based construction safety firm and 25 individuals were indicted Feb. 28 for allegedly operating a bogus safety training school, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office says. The firm, Valor Security & Investigations is also linked to “endangering the life” of Ivan Frias, who fell to his death from the 15th floor of a New York City construction site in 2022. Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, Engineering News-Record Ms. Knapschaefer may be contacted at knapj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Surety’s Several Liability Under Bonds

March 20, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a payment or performance bond is issued on behalf of its bond-principal, the surety is jointly and severally liable with its bond-principal. This means the surety has several liability under the bond, i.e., you don’t need to pursue the principal of the bond to pursue liability under the bond, which is a separate written intrument. Thus, if you are claiming damages of $500,000, by way of example, you can sue both the principal and surety under the bond, you can ONLY sue the principal under the bond (which is rarely practical), or you can ONLY sue the surety under the bond (which, oftentimes, is very practical). In many instances where I am pursuing a bond claim on behalf of a client, particularly a payment bond claim, I only sue the surety and do not sue the bond-principal unless there are certain strategic reasons in doing so. This is because of the surety’s several liability under the bond and there may be solvency issues with the principal or contractual reasons that, strategically, make much more sense to exclude the principal from the action. In MJM Electric, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2023 WL 2163087 (M.D.Fla. 2023), an electrical subcontractor was hired to perform electrical work by the prime contractor. The prime contractor had a payment bond. The project was delayed for two years. The electrical subcontractor claimed the prime contractor failed to compensate it for significant delays and out of scope work. 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

Partner Yvette Davis Elected to ALFA International’s Board of Directors

November 15, 2021 — Yvette Davis - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Congratulations to Haight Partner Yvette Davis who was elected by her peers to serve a three-year term on ALFA International’s 15 Member Board of Directors. The announcement was made during ALFA International’s Annual Business Meeting which took place in San Diego, California on October 20-22, 2021. About ALFA International ALFA International is the premier network of independent law firms. Founded in 1980, ALFA International was the first and continues to be one of the largest and strongest legal networks. We have 150 member firms throughout the world. Our 80 U.S. firms maintain offices in 95 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas. Our 70 international firms are located throughout Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, Canada, Mexico and South America. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com

Are You a Construction Lienor?

November 15, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to construction lien rights, not everyone that touches the project is a proper lienor. Forget about timely serving a Notice to Owner or recording a claim of lien, if you are not a proper lienor, it does not matter if you properly perfected your lien rights. If you are not a proper lienor, you have NO lien rights under the law! Florida Statue s. 713.01(18) defines a lienor as follows: (18) “Lienor” means a person who is: (a) A contractor; (b) A subcontractor; (c) A sub-subcontractor; (d) A laborer; (e) A materialman who contracts with the owner, a contractor, a subcontractor, or a sub-subcontractor; or (f) A professional lienor under s. 713.03; and who has a lien or prospective lien upon real property under this part, and includes his or her successor in interest. No other person may have a lien under this part. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

April 11, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided the case of Kirk v. Schaeffler Group USA, Inc., et al., a personal injury action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging injury resulting from the release of thousands of gallons of trichloroethylene (TCE) at the FAG Bearings Corporation’s (FAG Bearings) facility in Joplin, MO. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judicial estoppel ruling on the successor liability issue and concluded that the jury’s verdict on compensatory damages stands but their general verdict requires a new trial on Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim against FAG Bearings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

November 08, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the trial court's order that defense costs be paid for a period during which the insured rejected the defense even though no reservation of rights was issued. OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co. v. Celanese Corp., 2017 Mass. App. LEXIS 140 (Mass. App. Ct. Oct. 16, 2017). Celanese was sued over many years for claims of bodily injury due to asbestos and chemicals allegedly contained in its products and facilities. For many years, Celanese had an agreement with its insurer, OneBeacon, for defense cost-sharing. In April 2009, Celanese terminated this agreement and demanded that OneBeacon defend the cases under the policies previously issued. OneBeacon agreed to defend without a reservation of rights. OneBeacon also agreed to waive any issues of coverage and to indemnify Celanese from any settlements of judgments up to ts full liability limits. However, OneBeacon also sought to assume full control of the defense of claims against Celanese. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES