SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California Contractors – You Should Know That Section 7141.5 May Be Your Golden Ticket

February 18, 2020 — Amy L. Pierce, Mark A. Oertel & John Lubitz - Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Under California’s Contractors’ State License Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7000 et seq., all contractors’ and subcontractors’ licenses expire two years from the last day of the month in which the license 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 prior to the date the license is set to expire. Most contractors have various controls in place to make sure that the renewal application is timely filed and the required fee paid. Even so, we are only human and mistakes are made, and a renewal application filing deadline can be missed for a variety of reasons, e.g., the licensee’s mailing address has not been updated on the CSLB’s records, the individual responsible for filing the license renewal is out on leave, there has been a death in the family or a serious health issue, etc. Quoting Robert Burns, even “[t]he best-laid schemes of mice and men go oft awry” (To a Mouse, 1786). General contractors should be cognizant of both their and their subcontractors’ license renewal obligations and deadlines. If a licensee missed timely filing its renewal application, Business & Professions Code Section 7141.5may provide some relief. Section 7141.5 provides that the Registrar of Contractors,

“may grant the retroactive renewal of a license if the licensee requests the retroactive renewal in a petition to the registrar, files an application for renewal on a form prescribed by the registrar, and pays the appropriate renewal fee and delinquency fee prescribed by this chapter. This section shall only apply for a period not to exceed 90 days from the due date and only upon a showing by the contractor that the failure to renew was due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.”

Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP attorneys Amy Pierce, Mark Oertel and John Lubitz 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 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pine Island Bridge in Place as Florida Pushes Barrier Island Access in Ian's Wake

October 10, 2022 — Derek Lacey - Engineering News-Record
A temporary bridge is in place for Pine Island, Fla., after state officials mobilized crews to restore mainland access to barrier islands cut off when Hurricane Ian washed away roads and bridges last month. President Joe Biden (D) joined Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Oct. 5 in touring the hardest-hit parts of the state, with the governor announcing the five-day emergency Pine Island project and plans to finish repair of the causeway to Sanibel Island by the end of October. Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contractor Succeeds At the Supreme Court Against Public Owner – Obtaining Fee Award and Determination The City Acted In Bad Faith

September 20, 2021 — Lindsay T. Watkins - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
A contractor won a rare but much-deserved victory at the Supreme Court on July 8, 2021 in Conway Construction Co. v. City of Puyallup, 197 Wn.2d 825, 490 P.2d 221 (2021). The case, which involved an aggressive stance by a public owner:

• confirmed that the public owner bears the burden of demonstrating a termination for default is justified,
• reaffirmed the requirement to provide an opportunity to cure, and
• rejected the public owner’s attempts to escape its own contract language that the contractor relied upon.

John Ahlers and Lindsay Watkins of Ahlers Cressman and Sleight and Jamie Becker of Osborne Construction submitted the Amicus Brief for the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Washington in support of Conway to the Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay T. Watkins, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Watkins may be contacted at Lindsay.Watkins@acslawyers.com

---

Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

September 20, 2017 — Kevin Walton - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Arizona, a party successfully quieting title to property may recover its attorneys’ fees if it satisfies three requirements: (1) the party requests a quitclaim deed from the party adversely claiming title twenty days before bringing the quiet-title action; (2) the party tenders five dollars for the execution and delivery of the deed; and (3) the adverse party fails to comply. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1103(B). Recently, in McCleary v. Tripodi, No. 2 CA-CV 2016-0145, 2017 WL 3723472 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017), the Arizona Court of Appeals awarded attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party under this statute. In McCleary v. Tripodi, Mrs. Tripodi, who became the administrator of her husband’s estate upon his death, wrongfully recorded three deeds purporting to transfer property to herself. After unsuccessfully attempting to get Mrs. Tripodi to quitclaim the property, the plaintiffs filed a quiet-title action. The trial court agreed that the plaintiffs were the legal and rightful owners, granted summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor, and awarded attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer

---

General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer

December 15, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Advent v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., etc. (No. H041934 filed 12/6/16), a California appeals court refused to order a subcontractor’s excess insurer to contribute to a general contractor’s excess insurer because the general contractor did not qualify as an additional insured of the subcontractor’s insurer, and the policy wording made the subcontractor’s excess insurer second level excess above the general contractor’s own excess insurance. Advent was the general contractor on a housing development and Johnson was a sub-subcontractor providing concrete on perimeter walls. A Johnson employee dispatched to retrieve plywood dumped between some of the buildings somehow fell down an open stairwell inside one of the unfinished buildings and suffered serious injury. He sued Advent and others for negligence, but could not remember how he fell. 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

---

COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses

June 01, 2020 — Joseph M. Leone - ConsensusDocs
As everyone knows, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the construction industry due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Schedules, productivity, safety processes, and seemingly everything else are being affected. In these difficult times, most contractors are making every effort to work together to solve the problems caused by COVID-19. But what happens when differences arise between project owners, contractors, and subcontractors as to the effect of COVID-19 on a project? One party may want to continue pushing the schedule, others may want to slow down, or, more likely, not be able to keep up with the original schedule because of some reason related to COVID-19. As between a prime contractor and a subcontractor, a mutual responsibility clause can provide some clarity or, unfortunately, depending on how the subcontract is written, confusion. Almost all subcontracts have a clause which flows down the prime contractor’s obligations on a project to the subcontractor as applicable to the subcontractor’s work. Known as “flow-down” clauses, this clause works in one direction; obligations of the prime contractor “flow-down” to the Subcontractor. A mutual responsibility clause, in essence, works in both directions. The subcontractor is required to perform its obligations consistent with the prime contractor’s obligations to the owner and the subcontractor is granted the same rights against the prime contractor which the prime contractor has against the owner. Obligations flow down and rights flow up. The rights and obligations flowing through the prime contractor include, the obligation to perform the work in accordance with the plans and specifications, the obligation to meet the schedule constraints in the prime agreement, and the right to extensions of time and change orders to the extent the prime contractor obtains the same. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph M. Leone, Drewry Simmons Vornehm, LLP
Mr. Leone may be contacted at jleone@dsvlaw.com

---

Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

January 13, 2020 — Richard Volack - Construction Executive
Despite being aware of cyber risk, and even frightened by it, a shocking number of companies in the construction industry have neither a cyber insurance policy nor a basic cyber security plan to deal with a hack or breach into their computer systems. Once breached, companies with no plan in place become, essentially, a rudderless ship subject to the whims of criminal tides. A proper cyber plan lays out at least the following:

• the criteria for when a plan would be triggered (i.e., in the event of a breach or a hack);
• which persons inside the company (in-house counsel, IT personnel, executive, project managers) and which persons outside the company (attorney with knowledge of cyber issues and ideally construction law as well; forensic computer experts, crisis management experts; and an insurance broker familiar with cyber policies) should be involved;
• the chain of command and communication in this type of situation and the distinct roles each of the above players will fulfill (Note: this is not the same as the normal corporate chain of command); and
• the various available options to address the breach situation, which will all depend upon the facts at issue—such as the type and extent of the breach and how much of what particular kind of information was lost, stolen or exfiltrated.

Reprinted courtesy of Richard Volack, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Volack may be contacted at rvolack@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

January 06, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows. An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision. This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---