Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy

September 12, 2022 — Martha B. Chovanes & Laurie A. Stanziale - ConsensusDocs
While contractor bankruptcies have long been an issue in the construction industry, in the aftermath of COVID-19 and the resultant labor, material and supply-chain delays, contractor bankruptcies are of even greater concern. Many construction contracts attempt to protect the upstream party from a bankruptcy filing of its contractor or subcontractor by providing for an automatic right to terminate a contract, referred to as “ipso facto” clauses. However, such clauses are generally unenforceable as bankruptcy laws, specifically Section 365(e) of Title 11 of the United States Code, protect the party filing for bankruptcy (the “Debtor”) from unilateral termination of the contract by the non-Debtor party. What is an “Ipso Facto” clause? An ipso facto clause is a provision in an agreement which permits its termination by one party due to the bankruptcy, insolvency or financial condition of the other party. Reprinted courtesy of Martha B. Chovanes, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Chovanes may be contacted at mchovanes@foxrothschild.com Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

February 02, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Can a claimant recover attorney’s fees in a Miller Act payment bond dispute even though the Miller Act does not contain a prevailing party attorney’s fee provision? Yes, if the underlying contract that formed the basis of the suit provided for attorney’s fees. What about a prime contractor and surety—can they recover their attorney’s fees if they prevail in a Miller Act payment bond claim and the underlying contract provides a basis for fees? The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S.A. f/u/b/o RMP Capital Corp. v. Turner Construction Co., 2017 WL 244066 (11th Cir. 2017) seemingly just answered this question in the affirmative when it reversed a lower court’s ruling that precluded a prime contractor and surety that prevailed in a Miller Act claim from recovering their attorney’s fees[.] 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

Dispute Resolution in Your Construction Contract

February 07, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are important provisions in your construction contract that are geared towards dispute resolution. These are provisions you want to understand – not when a dispute arises, but BEFORE the dispute ever occurs. Many times, dispute resolution provisions are cast aside or not appreciated until a dispute rears its ugly head. This can put you in a reactive stance versus a proactive stance, which you want to be in, because you want to proactively make sure all rights are preserved relative to the dispute. You want to proactively make strategic decisions based on the dispute resolution provisions and process in your contract. Before your contract even gets signed, you may want to negotiate aspects of the dispute resolution process for many reasons. The process could be one-sided. It could be onerous. It could be complex. It could be unfavorable or costly with respect to how you want to progress a dispute. If you appreciate the dispute resolution process from the get-go, you will be in a more effective position to navigate the process while ensuring you are preserving your rights moving forward. 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

Hold on Just One Second: Texas Clarifies Starting Point for Negligence Statute of Limitations

July 11, 2022 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In construction or similar ongoing projects, problems often pop up. Sometimes they can pop up again and again. Making things even more complicated, one problem may affect another, seemingly new problem. When these construction problems result in property damage, timelines tend to overlap and determining when a statute of limitation begins to run for a particular claim can be difficult. Especially in states with short statute of limitations for tort claims like Texas, knowing when a statute begins to run is crucial for a subrogation professional. In Hussion St. Bldgs., LLC v. TRW Eng’rs, Inc., No. 14-20-00641-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2193, 2022 WL 1010313, the Court of Appeals of Texas provided clarity on when the two-year statute of limitations for tort claims begins to run. Reversing the judgment from the lower court, the appellate court denied summary judgment to the defendant, holding that, despite there being existing issues with the ongoing construction project, the negligence cause of action for Hussion Street Buildings, LLC (Hussion) did not begin to run more than two years prior to filing suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Testing Your Nail Knowledge

September 03, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Tools of the Trade provided “ten things you probably don’t know about nails.” For instance, “[I]n 2013 the U.S consumed 629,716 tons of steel nails.” Frane, the author of the article, said that if that “many nails were melted down and cast into a block of solid steel, the block would cover the area of a football field to a depth of 45’.” Another fact is that only 21% of nails used in the U.S. were made in the U.S. Furthermore, the leading U.S. supplier of nails is Mid Continent Nail Corporation, and they are located in Poplar, Missouri. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

June 18, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

June 13, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a recent case, the appellate court held that the attorney’s fees provision in the contract was NOT broad enough to entitle the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. This is known as “fees on fees” which is when you can recover your prevailing party attorney’s fees when you are fighting over the quantum that should be awarded to you as the prevailing party. The attorney’s fees provision at-issue stated: “In any lawsuit to enforce the Lease or under applicable law, the party in whose favor a judgment or decree has been rendered may recover its reasonable court costs including attorney’s fees from the non-prevailing party.” Language similar to this language can be found in many contracts as a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision. However, this provision was NOT broad enough to recover “fees on fees.” As explained in this article, if this is a consideration, you can negotiate or include this provision into your construction contract by expanding the scope of the prevailing party attorney’s fees provision to clarify that it entitles the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. 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

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

September 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Patrick Nugent of Saul Ewing LLP’s article in JD Supra Business Advisor, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a summary judgment for the insurer on a statutory bad faith claim in a coverage dispute under a homeowner’s policy. The coverage dispute was over “the collapse of a wall in the plaintiffs’ home.” The Plaintiffs alleged that “the collapse resulted from excessive rainfall during a storm in March 2011.” However, Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s engineer concluded that the collapse “resulted from long-term and on-going water infiltration attributable to poor maintenance.” Water damage had occurred a year prior to the collapse, but had not been repaired. In response, “Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Pennsylvania state court alleging breach of contract and statutory bad faith.” The court “determined that Metropolitan’s denial of benefits ‘was not only reasonable, but correct under the Policy language,’” and “ruled that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that Metropolitan lacked a reasonable basis for denying their claim and entered summary judgment for Metropolitan on the plaintiffs’ bad faith claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES