Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Importance of Preliminary Notices on Private Works Projects

September 03, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
Time and time again I receive calls from subcontractors and suppliers who find themselves faced with a customer who is either unwilling or unable to pay for labor or materials supplied for a private works project. As an attorney, the first question I usually ask is “did you serve a Preliminary Notice?” The second question I usually ask is “did you serve the Notice within twenty (20) days after first furnishing labor, service, equipment or materials to the job site?” The answers to these questions will often determine the ability to collect on the claim. The excuses for failing to serve the Preliminary Notice range from “for the last ten years the customer has always paid on time” to “I didn’t want to imply the contractor was not going to pay me” to “it is too much trouble to do on every job” or, simply, “I forgot”. Contractors and suppliers are well advised that any subcontractor or supplier who fails to properly and timely serve a Preliminary Notice is depriving itself of the most powerful tool available for compelling payment of construction related debt on a private works project. For all but the smallest contracts failure to serve the Preliminary Notice is also a violation of contractors’ license law and constitutes grounds for discipline by the Contractor State License Board, up to and including suspension of the contractor’s license. Most of these rules are found in California Civil Code Section 8200-8216. The requirements of these sections are far too numerous to itemize here. Suffice it to say every contractor, subcontractor and construction material supplier to private construction projects should be familiar with these sections of the California Civil Code. They set forth most of the rules which relate to Preliminary Notices on private construction projects. Some of the most important features are as follows: Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Hawaii Federal District Court Remands Coverage Dispute

June 15, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Accepting the insured's amended complaint, the federal district court of Hawaii remanded the coverage action to state court. Hale v. Lloyd's, London, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9061 (D. Haw. Jan. 17, 2020). Hale purchased a policy for his home in Hilo, Hawaii, from Defendant Pyramid Insurance Centre. The policy was memorialized by a Lloyd's Certificate issued by Defendant Lloyd's. On September 19, 2017, Hale entered Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Included in the bankruptcy proceeding was Hale's home and a secured home mortgage loan now owned by Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC. The Bankruptcy Court issued a discharge order on January 18, 2018. On May 9, 2018, Hale's home was destroyed, being covered with lava from the Kilauea volcano eruption. Hale filed a claim with Lloyd's based upon the loss of his home. The claim was denied. Subsequently, however, Lloyd's issued a check for the full amount of the policy. Both Hale and Specialized Loan were listed as payees on the check. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

July 19, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Oftentimes an occurrence in a commercial general liability policy is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” It is this occurrence that causes the bodily injury or property damage that may be covered by the policy. An interesting non-construction case determined an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy occurred when the negligent act occurred irrespective of the date of discovery or the date the claim was discovered or asserted. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy No. J046137 v. Pierson, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1288c (Fla. 4thDCA 2021). This is interesting because the appellate court did NOT apply a “trigger theory” to first determine the occurrence’s policy period. The appellate court found it did not need to determine which “trigger theory” applied to determine the occurrence for the injury and relied on a cited case: “trigger theories are generally used in the context of deciding when damage occurred ‘in cases involving progressive damages, such as latent defects, toxic spills, and asbestosis’ because the time between the ‘injury-causing event (such as defective construction, a fuel leak, or exposure to asbestos), the injury itself, and the injury’s discovery or manifestation can be so far apart.” Pierson, supra, citing and quoting Spartan Petroleum Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 805, 808 (4th Cir. 1998). 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

Breach of a Construction Contract & An Equitable Remedy?

September 22, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
In payment or collection-type lawsuits, the party suing for money sometimes asserts a claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit as an alternative equitable remedy to a breach of contract claim. Frankly, sometimes a party will do this as a means to throw everything against the wall hoping something, just something, sticks. However, if there is a contract by and between the parties, equitable claims such as unjust enrichment or quantum meruit will invariably fail. They will fail because a party cannot circumvent a contract simply because their recourse may prove better under an equitable theory. It doesn’t work like that! And, it should not! 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

New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

August 19, 2015 — Chris Dolmetsch & David M. Levitt – Bloomberg
New York’s building boom has spurred the formation of a task force to probe corruption in the construction industry. The group of prosecutors and inspectors plan to go after companies that ignore or hide safety violations or commit other crimes including bid rigging and extortion. The formation of the task force was announced the same day two men and their companies were indicted for causing a worker’s death in April by failing to address repeated warnings about safety at a construction site in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District. Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg and David M. Levitt, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

KB to Spend $43.2 Million on Florida Construction Defects

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In their second quarter filing with the SEC, KB Homes estimates that repairing damage caused by defects in framing, stucco, roofs, and sealant will cost it $43.2 million. That estimate includes homes that are yet to be identified. KB had estimated lower costs earlier, but subsequently determined it was necessary to increase the funds by $15.9. As a result, the firm showed a loss in the second quarter. The company hopes to recover some funds in insurance settlements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

May 16, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The latest ruling in the long-running environmental insurance case, Olin Corporation v. Lamorak Ins. Co., was released on April 18, 2018, by Judge Rakoff of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York. Judge Rakoff granted motions for summary judgment filed by Olin Corporation (Olin) and The London Market Insurers, and awarded Olin $55M for its claims against Lamorak Insurance Company (Lamorak). As Judge Rakoff notes, “the overall litigation, having already outlived two federal judges, is now before the unlucky undersigned.” This ruling is in response to the Second Circuit’s most recent decision in Olin Corp. v. OneBeacon Americans Ins. Co. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

September 03, 2015 — Lee Marshall & Jeffrey A. Vinnick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), which is responsible for determining the chemicals that are included on its list of chemicals known to be carcinogenic or to cause reproductive harm, thereby requiring businesses to comply with the rules accorded under California’s Proposition 65, has announced the beginning of a 45-day public comment period on five chemicals:

Nickel
Pentachlorophenol
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
Tetrachloroethylene

Lee Marshall, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Jeffrey A. Vinnick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Read the court decision

Read the full story...

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES