Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

July 15, 2019 — Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff & Paul Monte - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The normal project and contractual risks faced by contractors, consultants and suppliers to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority are considerable. A new law and regulations mandating that the MTA debar contractors, consultants and suppliers for unexcused schedule and cost overruns creates a new and unfair existential risk. The new law, Public Authorities Law Section 1279-h, slipped into the New York State budget bill and passed without public comment, was enacted on April 12, 2019. Implementing regulations were issued on June 5, 2019, and mandate that the MTA debar contractors (defined to include consultants, vendors and suppliers) if they: (1) fail to achieve substantial completion of their contractual obligations within 10% of the adjusted contract time; or (2) present claims for additional compensation that are denied in an amount that exceeds the total adjusted contract amount by 10% or more.[1] To say that your business and your livelihood are at risk is not an overstatement. The MTA umbrella includes the New York City Transit Authority, MTA Capital Construction, Bridges & Tunnels, Long Island Railroad and Metro North, among others. A debarment by one of these authorities will lead to a debarment by all of them, and then to a debarment by all New York State agencies and authorities,[2] and possibly debarment across state lines. Public and major private owners, as part of their RFP and procurement processes, routinely inquire regarding a bidding contractor’s debarment history. The risk is to new contracts and, because the MTA has decided to give retroactive effect to the law and regulations, to contracts that are already ongoing (even though these risks could not have been considered, priced or agreed to by contractors or their sureties). Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff and Paul Monte Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

September 28, 2017 — Philip M. Brown-Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion! Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com

Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

June 09, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a party breaches a non-compete agreement (with a non-solicitation clause), the non-breaching party typically moves for a temporary injunction. The breaching party is the party that signed the non-compete agreement, such as a former employee or consultant that agreed not to solicit its employer’s customer lists or referral sources upon leaving. The non-breaching party or the party moving for the temporary injunction is the party that is looking to protect its trade secret customer lists or referral sources, such as the employer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Effectively Managing Project Closeout: It Ends Where It Begins

August 06, 2019 — William E. Underwood - ConsensusDocs
Project closeout is sometimes one of the last things on a contractor’s mind at the beginning of a project, but project closeout can have a huge impact on a contractor’s overall profitability and success. Effectively managing the closeout process is critical, and it all begins with the negotiation and execution of the project contract. This contract can, and should, provide a complete roadmap for project closeout, as addressing these issues on the front end can set up the parties for successful project completion. It is then equally important to re-review the terms of the contract as project closeout approaches to ensure that everyone, including the owner, adheres to all contractual requirements. This article examines several pertinent issues related to project closeout that should be addressed during the contracting stage, including defining substantial and final completion, inspection and acceptance, punch lists, and warranties. Defining Substantial and Final Completion Having clear definitions for both substantial and final completion in your construction contract is an important and necessary early step in achieving successful project closeout. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

January 04, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Originally Published by CDJ on January 5, 2017 A performance bond is a valuable tool designed to guarantee the performance of the principal of the contract made part of the bond. But, it is only a valuable tool if the obligee (entity the bond is designed to benefit) understands that it needs to properly trigger the performance bond if it is looking to the bond (surety) to remedy and pay for a contractual default. If the performance bond is not properly triggered and a suit is brought upon the bond then the obligee could be the one materially breaching the terms of the bond. This means the obligee has no recourse under the performance bond. This is a huge downside when the obligee wanted the security of the performance bond, and reimbursed the bond principal for the premium of the bond, in order to address and remediate a default under the underlying contract. A recent example of this downside can be found in the Southern District of Florida’s decision in Arch Ins. Co. v. John Moriarty & Associates of Florida, Inc., 2016 WL 7324144 (S.D.Fla. 2016). Here, a general contractor sued a subcontractor’s performance bond surety for an approximate $1M cost overrun associated with the performance of the subcontractor’s subcontract (the contract made part of the subcontractor’s performance bond). The surety moved for summary judgment arguing that the general contractor failed to property trigger the performance bond and, therefore, materially breached the bond. The trial court granted the summary judgment in favor of the performance bond surety. Why? 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

Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction

March 25, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Orange County, Calif. (March 4, 2024) - Orange County Partners Esther P. Holm and Alexandra Anast obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a real estate matter involving a failed real estate transaction. The property at issue, which was located in the West Hollywood Hills and had beautiful views, was undergoing extensive remodeling. There were several bids for its purchase. Ultimately, the plaintiff, a real estate investor, was awarded the purchase. The plaintiff and the seller entered into a real estate purchase agreement, but the plaintiff failed to release the physical contingencies within the 17-day period prescribed by the contract. Instead, the plaintiff demanded a reduction in price, which the seller rejected. The plaintiff then filed a lis pendens on the property, clouding the title and making it impossible for the sellers to sell the property to anyone else. The buyer and seller subsequently engaged counsel. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the seller as well as the real estate company and its agents. Prior to trial, the plaintiff and the seller reached a settlement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

July 30, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contract Advisor
Another court has found that poor record keeping will prevent recovery on a claim. The court in Weatherproofing Tech., Inc. v. Alacran Contracting, LLC found that a contractor’s documents were a mess and that no reasonable jury could base a verdict on the contractor’s records. The underlying project involved the construction of an army training facility. The total project cost approximated $13 million. Alacran, the general contractor, subcontracted about $3 million of the work to Weatherproofing Tech. Alacran paid Weatherproofing $700,000 for its work, even though Weatherproofing submitted invoices of more than $2 million. Alacran justified its refusal to pay Weatherproofing on the grounds that the parties had agreed to split the profit and loss on the project and the project was out of money. Not surprisingly, Weatherproofing sued Alacran for the amount owed. 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

U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

August 14, 2018 — Dan Murtaugh - Bloomberg
Like much of the world, Patrick Decker has been engrossed in the saga of 12 boys and their soccer coach who became trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand. Unlike most, Decker is in a position to do something about it. As chief executive officer of Xylem Inc., one of the world’s top water technology firms, Decker spent much of last week reaching out to Thai officials and mobilizing his company of 17,000 employees to help. Decker said he sent four engineers to the cave site, and they assisted rescuers by boosting pumping power 40 percent. Thai Navy SEALs and international cave diving experts extracted eight boys over Sunday and Monday. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dan Murtaugh, Bloomberg

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES