Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

February 26, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Under California's SB 800 "Right to Repair Act," a builder may obtain a "reasonable release" to resolve a construction defect claim in exchange for a cash payment. So, what's a "reasonable release" under SB 800? This question was answered by the Second Appellate District in the case of Belasco v. Wells (filed 2/17/2015, No. B254525). Plaintiff David Belasco ("Plaintiff") purchased a newly constructed residence in 2004 from the builder defendant Gary Loren Wells ("Wells"). In 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Wells with the Contractors' State License Board (the "Board") regarding certain alleged construction defects. The parties settled the 2006 action through written agreement that required Wells to pay Plaintiff $25,000 in consideration for Plaintiff executing a release and a Civil Code §1524 waiver of all known or unknown claims. In 2012, Plaintiff filed a subsequent action against Wells and Wells’ surety, American Contractors Indemnity Company ("American Contractors") (collectively "Defendants"), alleging a defect in the roof that was discovered by Plaintiff in 2011. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Colin T. Murphy, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

June 26, 2014 — John Gittelsohn and Alan Ohnsman – Bloomberg
Ben Stapleton frames the shot with his hands like a movie director, sharing his vision of a junkyard he’s trying to sell for $3.5 million. He sees artist workspaces, retail shops and apartments with Los Angeles skyline views, steps from a riverfront oasis. Right now the river of his dreams is the concrete flood channel where an 18-wheeler chased Arnold Schwarzenegger on a Harley in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” one of the movies that used the 200-foot-wide (60-meter) ditch to depict industrial bleakness. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan to return the Los Angeles River to a more natural state would cost $1 billion and has speculators circling even before the funding’s in place. “The private money is already moving,” said Stapleton, a vice president at commercial real-estate brokerage Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. (JLL) “They’re looking for opportunities. It’s the private money that’s going to make the vision happen.” Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Ohnsman may be contacted at aohnsman@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn and Alan Ohnsman, Bloomberg

Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court. The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.” The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties. Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment. The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.” The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors. The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.” The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

September 06, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Virginia Code Sec. 11-4.1 makes indemnification provisions in construction contracts that are so broad as to indemnify the indemnitee from its own negligence unenforceable. Of course, this begs the question as to what language of indemnification provisions make them unenforceable. A case from the City of Chesapeake Virginia Circuit Court examined this question. In Wasa Props., LLC v. Chesapeake Bay Contrs., Inc., 103 Va. Cir 423 [unfortunately I can’t find a copy to which to link], Wasa Properties (“Wasa”) hired Chesapeake Bay Contractors (“CBC”) to perform utility work at Lake Thrasher in the Tidewater area of Virginia. Wasa then alleged that CBC breached the contract and caused over $400,000 in damages due to incorrectly installed water lines. Wasa used the following indemnification language as the basis for its suit:

To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner and his agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to attorney’s fees arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Work.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2023 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

September 19, 2022 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that five Partners have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. In addition, four attorneys have been included in the 2023 Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch list. These recognitions include attorneys from the firm’s Hawthorne, NY; Chicago, IL; Palm Beach Gardens, FL; and St. Petersburg, FL offices. 2023 Best Lawyers® Hawthorne, NY

Lisa L. Shrewsberry – Commercial Litigation

Chicago, IL

Brian C. Bassett – Insurance Law

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

Rina Clemens – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

St. Petersburg, FL

Scot E. Samis – Appellate Practice
Lauren S. Curtis – Insurance Law

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

AIA Releases State-Specific Waiver and Release Forms

September 05, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has released a new series of state-specific waiver and release forms including forms for California. The new California-specific forms are:

G901CA-2022 – California Conditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment
G902CA-2022 – California Unconditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment
G903CA-2022 – California Conditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment
G904CA-2022 – California Unconditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment

California is one of twelve states – including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Texas, Utah and Wyoming – which regulate waiver and release forms on construction projects. California’s waiver and release statute, which is codified at Civil Code section 8120 et seq., sets forth specific language which should be used in waivers and releases. While the exact language set forth under California’s waiver and release statutes does not need to be used, the statute provides that the language must be “in substantially” the same form, and most people follow the statutory language exactly. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

March 16, 2017 — David Cook & Chadd Reynolds - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Blog
In continuing our series on common contract provisions found in construction contracts, this post highlights no-damages-for-delay clauses. Parties to a contract – particularly a construction contract – may agree that the performance of the contract must occur within a set amount of time. When a party is delayed in performing a contract, it may incur additional costs due to the delay. In most circumstances, unless the parties agree otherwise, the delayed party would be entitled to an extension of time to perform the contract. But it may also seek to recover the additional costs resulting from the delay. A no-damages-for-delay clause attempts to prevent the delayed party from recovering those additional costs. In construction contracts, an upstream party, such as an owner or prime contractor, typically relies on a no-damages-for-delay clause when presented with a delay claim by a downstream party, such as a subcontractor. Reprinted courtesy of David Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP and Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

July 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Kentucky Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the contractor's faulty workmanship in digging the existing basement of a building to make it deeper. Martin v. Acuity, 2018 Ky. LEXIS 188 (Ky. April 26, 2018). Martin Elias/Properties, LLC (MEP) purchased an older home to renovate and resell for profit. MEP hired Tony Gosney to renovate and expand the basement. Gosney agreed to dig the existing basement deeper, pour new footers and pour a new concrete floor. While performing his work, Gosney failed to support the existing foundation adequately before digging around it. Within days, the old foundation began to crack and eventually the entire structure began to sag. Gosney stopped work and notified his insurer, Acuity. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES