SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

January 19, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Blog
Upcoming blog posts will focus on common contract provisions found in construction contracts. Such provisions are not solely limited to construction contracts and can be found in many other types of business contracts as well. This post will highlight indemnity clauses. An indemnity clause is a common contract provision used to allocate risk between parties to a contract. The clause obligates one party (the Indemnitor) to protect the other party (the Indemnitee) from certain losses, typically arising from claims of third parties. It may require the Indemnitor to reimburse the Indemnitee for losses or expenses, or satisfy judgments, or even defend the Indemnitee in a lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

November 21, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Originally published by CDJ on April 20, 2017 Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed. The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . . Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

November 16, 2023 — Jessica Knox - The Dispute Resolver
Company: Lobar, Inc. Email: rachel.clancy@lobar.com Website: www.lobar.com College: York College of Pennsylvania (Bachelor of Science in Marketing, 2001) Graduate School: Florida Institute of Technology (MBA in Acquisition and Contract Management, 2004) Law School: Penn State University, Dickinson School of Law (JD 2007) States Where Company Operates/Does Business: Headquarters are in Dillsburg, PA; construction projects located in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, and West Virginia Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel. A: Before law school, I spent three years as a Contract Specialist writing construction contracts for the Department of Defense, Naval Facilities Command in New Jersey. I had no idea I'd eventually find my way back to construction. After law school, I spent five years in the business department of a local law firm handling corporate formations, a variety of commercial contracts, and learning some real estate law. After another four years in-house with a data and marketing company in Harrisburg, I accepted my current position with Lobar, where I've been for the last seven years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Knox, Stinson LLP
Ms. Knox may be contacted at jessica.knox@stinson.com

---

Specific Performance of an Option Contract to Purchase Real Property is Barred Absent Agreement on All Material Terms

December 20, 2017 — Richard H. Herold - Real Estate Litigation Blog
On November 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals (Division 1), in Offerman v. Granada, LLC, 2017 WL 5352664, reversed a trial court order directing specific performance of an alleged option to purchase real property, holding that the alleged option was too indefinite to be specifically performed because the parties did not agree to all of the material terms of the option. Tenant-Purchaser Offerman executed a two-year lease with Landlord-Seller Granada, which granted Offerman “the option to purchase [the] property…for a sales price to be determined at that time by an independent appraiser acceptable to both Tenant and Landlord. (Terms and Conditions to be stipulated by both parties at such time).” (emphasis added). Offerman timely advised Granada he intended to exercise the option, asked Granada to name an appraiser, and, when Granada did not respond, Offerman tendered a $240,000 appraisal to exercise the option. Granada did not retain an appraiser but instead simply demanded $350,000 to close the sale. After a bench trial, the Court determined that Offerman was entitled to specific performance, and, as the parties had not agreed to certain terms, held a second evidentiary hearing to resolve the form of judgment, therein naming a title agency to handle the escrow, setting a closing date, allocating the transaction fees between the parties, and ordering Granada to pay for the property inspection. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com

---

Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

June 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
rime contracts typically contain a constructive change directive clause. A constructive change directive also goes by the acronym CCD (and for purposes of this article, such changes will be referred to as a CCD), however it can also be known as a Work Change Directive, Interim Directed Change, or Directed Change, depending on the type of contract beign utilized. An owner can order a CCD, versus issuing the contractor a formalized change order, as a mechanism to direct the prime contractor to perform work if there is a dispute as to contract amount, time, or scope. Just because an owner issues a CCD does not mean the owner is conceding that it owes the contractor a change order. Rather, the owner is ordering the CCD as a mechanism to keep the project moving forward notwithstanding a disagreement with the contractor as to the price or time impact. Standard form construction agreements such as the AIA, EJCDC, or ConsensusDocs, will have a standard provision dealing with change directives where the owner can order the contractor to proceed with work in the absence of a change order. In the federal government context, most construction contracts will contain a changes clause that authorizes the government to formally direct changes; and, there is authority for contractors to equitably pursue a constructive change based on certain directives or instructions issued by the government. Naturally, from the contractor’s perspective, this CCD provision is an important consideration as it could likely require the contractor to finance a change to the owner’s project, particularly if there is a scope dispute where the owner does not believe the contractor is entitled to any change order. 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

---

Differences in Types of Damages Matter

June 22, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Over the last 7 and a half years (yes I have been doing this for that long), I have often “mused” on various contractual provisions and their application. Why? Because the contract matters and will be enforced. Provisions like “no damages for delay” and “pay if paid” litter construction contracts and will be enforced if properly drafted. These types of clauses affect whether and what types of damages you as a construction company can collect. Of course, these clauses have their limitations. For instance, and as pointed out by my pal Matt DeVries at his great Best Practices Construction Law blog, not all damages that a subcontractor or general contractor may attribute to coordination or other scheduling related issues are “delay damages” to which a “no damages for delay” clause may apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

November 30, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Scope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The fourth and final part in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses that can put a damper on your holidays.

Provision: Warranty Provisions

• Typical Provision: “Subcontractor warrants to Contractor that all materials and equipment furnished shall be new unless otherwise specified and that all Work performed shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, of good quality and free from defects, and in conformance with industry standards, manufacturer’s recommendations and the Contract Documents. All work not conforming to these requirements, including substitutions not properly approved, shall be considered defective. Subcontractor agrees to promptly make good any and all defects due to faulty workmanship, materials and/or equipment which may appear within the Contract Documents, and if no such period is stipulated in the Contract, then for a period of one year from the date of acceptance by the Owner. Nothing herein shall shorten or limit any applicable periods of limitations including, but not limited to, those set forth in Civil Code, Part 2, Title 2, Chapter 3.”
• What it Means: Warranty periods are subject to the agreement of the parties. However, warranties are different than limitations periods, such as California’s 4 year statute of repose for patent defects and 10 year statute of repose for latent defects (note: a statute of repose is different than a statute of limitation. A statute of repose sets a deadline based on an event. So, for example, under the 10 year statute of repose for latent defects a claimant must bring a latent defect claim within 10 years following substantial completion even if the latent defect wasn’t discovered until 10 years and 1 month following substantial completion. A statute of limitation, in contrast, sets a deadline based on the occurrence of an injury or damage. So, for example, California has a 2 year statute of limitation for personal injuries, which sets a deadline of 2 years from the date of injury to bring a personal injury claim). Warranty periods are also different from limitations periods because most warranties require work to be corrected at no cost, and because many contracts include attorney’s fee provisions, breach of a warranty can give rise to claim for attorney’s fees as well.
• What You Can Do: Lower-tiered parties should examine warranty provisions to see if they are reasonable, and if not reasonable, should seek to either eliminate or limit those provisions, such as by reducing the warranty period or providing different warranty periods for different components of work, etc.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

June 06, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The district court accepted the magistrate's recommended ruling denying the insurer's motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and bad faith claims in a case involving collapse. Jang v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51880 (D. Conn. March 27, 2018). After purchase of their home, the insureds' inspector found large cracks in the foundation. Liberty denied coverage, contending that the basement wall was collapsing due to settling earth or movement. The insureds' expert later found the foundation had cracks from the oxidation of iron sulfide minerals in the foundation's concrete. The insureds sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practice Act and the Unfair Trade Practices Act. 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

---