Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Construction Lien Waiver Provisions Contractors Should Be Using

January 06, 2020 — Jason Lambert - Construction Executive
It is common in construction for a subcontractor or material supplier of any tier to be required to provide a lien waiver when receiving payment. But not all lien waivers are created equal. While at a minimum, a lien waiver, by definition, needs to include a release of liens, it can also include many other terms that can tie up loose ends or resolve potential problems before they begin. Additional Releases A typical lien release is going to release any liens and right to claim liens on the subject property. But a lien waiver can also include releases of any claims against surety bonds, other statutory rights or claims, and at its broadest, claims against the paying party. One example of a provision that could help accomplish this is a release of “any right arising from a payment bond that complies with a state or federal statute, any common law payment bond right, any claim for payment, and any rights under any similar ordinance, rule, or statute related to claim or payment rights.” Broad release language can also be used to effectively preclude any claims arising prior to the date of the release. Payment Representations and Warranties A typical lien release has no representations or warranties about payment to subcontractors or material suppliers of a lower tier. But contractors can include language requiring the company receiving payment to represent and warrant that all subcontractors of a lower tier have been paid or will be paid within a certain timeframe using the funds provided and that these are material representations and inducements into providing payment. On a related note, if the contract requires subcontractors to provide lien releases from lower tier subcontractors in addition to their own release when seeking payment, contractors can require the sub-subcontractor releases to include representations that they have been paid by the subcontractor to try and tie up payment loose ends all around. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Lambert, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Lambert may be contacted at jason.lambert@nelsonmullins.com

New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

November 16, 2020 — Thomas Regan & Karley Kamaris - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
On September 1, 2020, New Jersey adopted a brand-new rule of procedure, Rule 4:25-8, which properly defines motions in limine. On its face, the new rule prohibits, broadly, filing motions in limine that may have a dispositive effect on the case. Most notably, the rule expressly eliminates the ability to move, on motion in limine, to bar expert testimony in matters in which such experts are required to sustain a party’s burden of proof. This effectively makes the summary judgment phase of litigation the last chance to bar experts from a jury trial or take any other dispositive action The new rule comes at a time in which the evidentiary standard for experts is shifting in New Jersey. In October 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court reconciled the framework for analyzing the reliability of expert testimony under N.J.R.E. 702 and 703 in In re: Accutane Litigation. Significantly, New Jersey, a traditional Frye jurisdiction, incorporated certain federal Daubert factors for expert “use by our courts” but, overall, fell short of adopting the Daubert standard as a whole. In applying the relevant Daubert factors, the trial court in Accutane held that the subject experts’ methodologies were unsound due to the failure to apply fundamentals of the scientific method of the medical-evidence hierarchy. The decision resulted in the dismissal of over 3,000 claims. Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Regan may be contacted at Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Karley.Kamaris@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

February 14, 2023 — The Hartford Staff - The Hartford Insights
If a construction company takes on a lot of work, it’s a good thing, right? Not exactly. In fact, overextension is one of the primary reasons why contractors fail. And it’s something that contractors should consider as a priority for their risk management plan. Of the 43,277 construction businesses that started in March 2011, only 37.6% of companies survived 10 years later.1 “The construction industry has a high rate of failure,” explains Tim Holicky, senior executive underwriter in The Hartford’s construction central bond team. “And more often than not, it’s because of too much work, rather than too little of it. The key to a contractor’s long-term survival is knowing when to say no.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

How BIM Helps Make Buildings Safer

July 01, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
There are many uses for building information models that are yet to be discovered. One Finnish team collaborated with a city and fire & rescue authority to explore how BIM would help make buildings safer. “Imagine a fire inspector in a building with an AR headset. He can retrieve data from the building’s digital model and hence get an x-ray view of the pipes and cables behind the lowered ceiling.” That’s a scenario that Timo Lehtoviita pictured when we discussed the experimentation project which he led at Saimia, Saimaa University of Applied Sciences. Saimia, the city of Lappeenranta and their real estate company LATO, and the Rescue Department of South Karelia partnered in 2018 to explore the possibilities of using BIM to make buildings safer. The project, titled “Enhancing building safety using information models,” formed part of the national KIRA-digi built environment digitalization program. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

September 03, 2019 — Michael Francis Lenhardt & Burks A. Smith, III - Traub Lieberman
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman Partners Michael Lenhardt and Burks Smith won a Directed Verdict at trial in a dispute over Sinkhole Loss coverage in Broward County Circuit Court. The lawsuit arose out of a claim for Breach of Contract involving an alleged “failed repair” of a 2005 sinkhole at the insureds’ property. The Plaintiffs argued that their Policy Limits did not apply because the carrier allegedly undertook the subsurface repairs, relying on Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., 920 So.2d 832 (Fla. 4thDCA 2006). The Plaintiffs asserted that because the insurance company allegedly hired the below ground repair company, a “new contract” was formed, and the Plaintiffs should be entitled to limitless repairs to their home, notwithstanding the Policy Limits. This argument obviously presented the carrier with very significant exposure. Attorneys Lenhardt and Smith provided a vigorous defense for the insurance company at trial, during which they presented the jury with evidence that the carrier did not, in fact, hire the subsurface repair company. They further established to the jury that the insureds actually signed a contract with the repair company directly, and that the defendant did not invoke the Our Option repair clause of the Policy. After the Plaintiffs rested their case, Mr. Lenhardt and Mr. Smith moved the Court for entry of a directed verdict. The defense argued to the Court that the Plaintiffs could not prove their case to the jury based upon the facts presented as a matter of law, thus entitling the insurance company to a defense verdict. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Francis Lenhardt, Traub Lieberman and Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman Mr. Lenhardt may be contacted at mlenhardt@tlsslaw.com Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

August 17, 2017 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
In the wake of its merger with an investment fund, TRC Cos. has been busy swatting away pesky shareholder lawsuits driven by law firms who specialize in such litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

“Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

March 22, 2018 — Erinn Contreras and Joy O. Siu – Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
It is industry standard in California for owners of a construction project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work it has completed, less a certain percentage that is withheld as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. This withholding is called a retention. Contractors generally pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors via a retention clause in the subcontract. Under such clause, if a subcontractor fails to complete its work or correct deficiencies in its work, the owner and the general contractor may use the retention to bring the subcontractor’s work into conformance with the requirements of the contract. When and how retention payments must be released are governed by, among other statutes, Civil Code section 8800 et seq. Specifically, Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after the general contractor receives all or part of a retention payment. Failure to make payments in accordance with Section 8814 can subject an owner or a contractor to a (1) two percent penalty per a month on the amount wrongfully withheld, and (2) claim for attorney’s fees for any litigation required to collect the wrongfully withheld retention payments. (Civ. Code, § 8818.) Reprinted courtesy of Erinn Contreras, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and Joy Siu, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

November 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer properly denied coverage for a bulge in a warehouse wall that the insured claimed was caused by Hurricane Ike. Russell v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143882 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2014). Hurricane Ike displaced metal roof coverings on the insured's warehouse, causing interior water damage to several rooms. Scottsdale eventually paid $84,820.36 for the loss of the roof, less the deductible. The parties disagreed on whether a horizontal bulge on the north wall of the warehouse was also caused by the hurricane. The bulging portion of the wall was not cracked, but cracks were seen around the corners and windows. The insured admitted to an engineer retained by Scottsdale that the cracks in the exterior walls had been filled with caulking on several occasions prior to Hurricane Ike. Scottsdale denied coverage for the damage to the north wall under exclusions for soil sinking, rising, or shifting and for damage from faulty, inadequate or defective design, construction, and repair.The insured later sent a demand for $800,000 for the damage to the wall. A suit was eventually filed by the insured. 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