SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

June 09, 2016 — Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – JUNE 6, 2016 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that three of the firm’s attorneys, Jennifer L. Ferrentino, Robyn E. Frick and Michael B. McClellan were selected to the Southern California Super Lawyers 2016 Rising Stars list for business litigation. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers to receive this honor. The attorneys will be recognized in the July 2016 issues of Super Lawyers Magazine, Los Angeles Magazine and Orange Coast magazine. In addition, twelve of the firm’s Newport Beach attorneys were selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers list, an honor given to no more than five percent of the lawyers in California. Michael S. Cucchissi, Real Estate Mark S. Himmelstein, Construction Litigation Jane M. Samson, Real Estate Jeffrey M. Dennis, Construction Litigation Charles S. Krolikowski, Eminent Domain Robert K. Scott, Insurance Coverage Gregory L. Dillion, Business Litigation Thomas F. Newmeyer, Business Litigation Michael J. Studenka, Employee Litigation: Defense Joseph A. Ferrentino, Construction Litigation John A. O'Hara, Construction Litigation Carol S. Zaist, Business Litigation Making the list since it was originally published in 2004 is co-founding litigation partner Greg Dillion who was again selected to the Top 50: 2016 Orange County Super Lawyers List. In addition, Jennifer L. Ferrentino, Robyn E. Frick, Jane M. Samson and Carol S. Zaist were listed in the 2016 Top Women Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. The Rising Stars list is developed using the same selection process except a candidate must be either 40 years old and younger or in practice for 10 years or less. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 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 business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, 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.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Court Enforces Construction Management Exclusion

March 14, 2018 — Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
In its recent decision in Houston Cas. Co. v. Cavan Corp. of NY, Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1138 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t Feb. 20, 2018), a New York appellate court had occasion to consider the application of a construction management exclusion in a general liability policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

---

Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

April 14, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

Assemblyman John Oceguera has written a bill that would redefine the term Construction Defect, set statutory limitations, and force the prevailing party to pay for attorney’s fees. Assembly Bill 401 has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary.



Currently, the law in Nevada states that “a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence, of an alteration of or addition to an existing residence, or of an appurtenance, which is done in violation of law, including in violation of local codes or ordinances, is a constructional defect.” However, AB401 “provides that there is a rebuttable presumption that workmanship which exceeds the standards set forth in the applicable law, including any applicable local codes or ordinances, is not a constructional defect.”



The Nevada courts may award attorney fees to the prevailing party today. However, AB401 mandates that attorney fees must be awarded, and the exact award is to be determined by the Court. “(1) The court shall award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, which must be an element of costs and awarded as costs; and (2) the amount of any attorney’s fees awarded must be determined by and approved by the court.”



AB401 also sets a three year statutory limit “for an action for damages for certain deficiencies, injury or wrongful death caused by a defect in construction if the defect is a result of willful misconduct or was fraudulently concealed.”



This Nevada bill is in the early stages of development.

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

---

Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

January 19, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We all know that the contract is king in Virginia. We also know that Virginia will allow for a so called “incorporation” clause that will allow for “flow down” of certain prime contract provisions in a way that will make those provisions applicable to subcontractors. We also know that a claim for breach of contract or other contractual claim does not last forever due to certain statutes of limitation found in the Code of Virginia. What happens when all of these elements crash together in one place leading to litigation? Well, a relatively recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least a partial answer. In Hensel Phelps Construction Company v Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc, the Virginia Supreme Court considered a claim that arose from construction at Virginia Tech by Hensel Phelps. The construction concluded in 1998 (remember that date). The Prime Contract included language concerning a one year “Guarantee of Work” as well as fairly typical Warranty of Workmanship” language. However the Prime Contract also stated that the one year guaranty term did nothing to affect any other limitations period for any other action pursuant to the Prime Contract (this is important as well because Virginia Tech was not subject to any statute of limitations due to its status as an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia). Final payment was made to Hensel Phelps and subsequently to the subcontractors in 1999. 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

---

Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Canton, Ohio construction company, TAB Construction, has been sued by the federal government over claims that the company lied about its location in order to receive contracts from the U.S. government. According to the suit, TAB received about $13 million for contracts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The firm had gained the contracts through a Small Business Administration program that allowed firms in certain areas to compete for contracts, however, the firm was not located in the appropriate area. When the SBA found that TAB was not doing business out of an address that qualified for the SBA’s HUBZone program, the company claimed to be working from another address that qualified. Upon investigation, the SBA found this also was not true. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Daily Reports – The Swiss Army Knife of Project Documentation

June 08, 2020 — Christopher A. Henry - ConsensusDocs
Project “Daily Reports” are some of the most important, yet overlooked aspects of a construction project. These reports serve many beneficial roles such as holding parties accountable to their obligations, providing the basis for an as-built schedule, recording manpower, documenting site conditions, and recording any other important and relevant information that happened on the job site that day. Daily reports can also provide information to help with claims or disputes that may arise in the future, such as noting weather delays, providing backup for future delay claims, and providing information to dispute claims made against your company. Finally, daily reports also serve as a useful communication tool during the project and a source of real time information for parties that want to know how the work is commencing on a day to day basis. Because daily reports are the “Swiss army knife” of project documentation, it is extremely important that a contractor puts for its best effort when creating them. It is no secret that a construction project can become more chaotic as the schedule progresses. Unfortunately, when that is the case, the effort put into creating these reports drops off and sometimes the responsibility of creating such reports is thrown aside altogether. I can speak from experience. Prior to entering the practice of law, I was a project engineer for a general contractor in Atlanta. As an engineer in the field, one of my many responsibilities was to enter the daily reports. Based off this experience, below are some thoughts on how to prepare useful daily reports. 1. Check the contract. The contract you entered may set forth specific requirements for the daily reports, such as where to file them, the required format, and specific information that must be included. Complying with contractual requirements is necessary for a successful project. One word of caution for subcontractors, a subcontract will often incorporate the prime contract. If that is the case, be sure to check the prime contract for any specific language relating to daily reports. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher A. Henry, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Henry may be contacted at chenry@joneswalker.com

---

Robots on Construction Sites Are Raising Legal Questions

September 18, 2023 — Peter Sheridan - Construction Executive
Mark Twain said that “good decisions come from experience. Experience comes from making bad decisions.” Aesop warns “be careful what you wish for….” But is there a good decision to be made now to employ robots on your next project? There is not a lot of experience to help us make that decision, and the robotic laborer that does not tire or need breaks or desire a raise or promotion looks like an option we might all wish for when planning our next project. Are there pitfalls, traps for the unwary? Always. Spotting them is the trick. After a brief glimpse into the past for appropriate context, there are a few traps that need to be considered. Reprinted courtesy of Peter Sheridan, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

September 14, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (No. B272387; filed 8/31/17) (Montrose III), a California appeals court found that excess insurance is not triggered for continuous and progressive losses until there has been horizontal exhaustion of underlying insurance, but there is no “universal horizontal exhaustion” because the order or sequence in which excess policies may be accessed depends on the specific policy wording at issue. The coverage lawsuit was initiated by Montrose in 1990, when it was named in environmental actions for continuous and progressive property damage emanating from its Torrance chemical plant since the 1960s. Montrose had varying levels of insurance coverage throughout, but the total limits and attachment points of differing levels of excess coverage in any given year had changed from year-to-year. The coverage action was stayed in 2006 due to concern of prejudice to the underlying defense, but the stay was lifted in 2014 with Montrose entering a consent decree in the CERCLA action. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---