Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

May 20, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

PR Newswire reports that the Carolinas Associated General Contractors (CAGC) have successfully persuaded the South Carolina legislature to pass a bill restoring commercial general liability (CGL) coverage. Governor Nikki Hartley signed the legislation on May 17.

A South Carolina Supreme Court decision given on January 7, 2011, had ended commercial general liability coverage in the state. Senate Bill 431 addressed this decision, restoring the ability of home builders to obtain CGL coverage.

PR Newswire quotes South Carolina homebuilder, Allen Amsler: “We have seen a lot of legislation with substantial impact to our business over the years. However, I would place this in the same level of importance with the original tort reform legislation. The effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling could have been catastrophic to our industry in South Carolina had it not been for this bill. Thanks to all those in the House, Senate and the Governor’s office who assisted us.”

Read the full story…

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

Builders FirstSource to Buy ProBuild for $1.63 Billion

April 15, 2015 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
Builders FirstSource Inc., a Dallas-based maker of materials for new homes, rose the most on record after saying it agreed to buy competitor ProBuild Holdings LLC for $1.63 billion. ProBuild, based in Denver, operates about 400 lumber and building product distribution, manufacturing and assembly centers serving 40 U.S. states, according to a statement Monday. The companies had 2014 combined revenue of $6.1 billion. Builders FirstSource surged 68 percent to $11.57. It was the biggest one-day gain ever for the shares, which began trading in June 2005. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

March 30, 2016 — Charles S. Krolikowski – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Filing a lawsuit against a government entity can be a daunting task given the complexities of tort claims requirements and governmental immunities. A recent decision by the Court of Appeal in Pacific Shores Property Owners Association v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, Case No. C07020 (Jan. 20, 2016), provided welcome clarification as to the proper legal standard for an inverse condemnation action based upon activities of a government entity which cause water damage to private property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Charles S. Krolikowski, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Mr. Krolikowski may be contacted at charles.krolikowski@ndlf.com

When Customers Don’t Pay: What Can a Construction Business Do

June 06, 2022 — Patrick Hogan – Handle.com
Late payments are not unusual in construction. From general contractors to subs and material suppliers, every construction project participant has dealt with delayed payments as part of business. However, there’s the issue of clients who refuse to pay. Not late--just no payment. For businesses big and small, a client who refuses to pay can make a significant impact financially and operationally. Many construction transactions are made on trust, and when a client doesn’t pay, some contractors and suppliers may make poor decisions. Yet, to get out of a project going sideways--with payment in hand or lessons learned--you need to be smart and proceed with your business interest in mind. Why is the customer not paying? This is where it begins. You must first identify the reasons why a customer refuses to pay. Were they unsatisfied with the quality of work? Do they feel that what was delivered was not aligned with what’s contractually obligated? Do they feel like the work was rushed or the materials used inferior? Was the job finished later than agreed? All these are possibilities that need to be investigated. If the customer has not volunteered any of this information, it’s best to personally visit the project or set a meeting with the customer to discuss issues in person. If the problems the customer has raised are valid, plan how to resolve them right away. Suppose, after the discussion, you’ve determined that the customer demands things beyond what’s contractually obligated, and you cannot resolve them without incurring unreasonable time and costs. In that case, you might have a delinquent customer in your hands. Let the customer know your decision. If you’ve decided to proceed and fix the issues they’ve raised, send the invoice for the unpaid work immediately upon commencing the remedial work. Of course, there is no guarantee that addressing their concerns will result in swift payment, so exercise your best judgment. If you think you’ve exhausted all the cordial means to get them to pay as the contract requires, you might need to consider your legal options. A legal option to recover payments: Filing a mechanics lien State laws protect construction providers like contractors and material suppliers from non-payment through lien laws. Mechanics liens work by placing a hold on the property where the work or materials were provided as a security in case of non-payment. Mechanics liens can result in a sale of the property where the lien is attached, and the proceeds will be used to pay unpaid vendors. When a client fails to pay after a good-faith pursuit to resolve the payment issue, filing a mechanics lien becomes the smartest next move. However, note that to file a mechanics lien, you must have fulfilled the requirements of lien laws specific to the state where the project is located. For many states, the main requirement is sending a preliminary or pre-lien notice to secure your right to file liens. It’s only good business practice to file preliminary notices for every project you work on. It’s not an indication of distrust in the client’s ability to pay–and that is mentioned in the wording of many statutory statements included in preliminary notices. It’s just industry standard to file prelim notices. Filing a mechanics lien includes a period where the client still has the opportunity to pay arrears before the lien is enforced. Suppose the client fails to pay in this period. You are now allowed to enforce the mechanics lien through a lawsuit. This is a complex process, but it presents itself as the last resort to recover payments. As long as all your documents are in check, you’ve filed the necessary notices in the time and manner required by law, and you’ve fulfilled your contractual obligations to the client, a ruling in your favor is the likely outcome. Promoting timely payments It’s in your best interest to promote timely payments from your customers. While construction contracts are primarily reliant on trust, there are many things you can do to encourage and facilitate timely payments from your clients. Here are some ideas:

Use detailed contracts and progress billing
Vet clients through background research, credit history, references, and public financial records
Send regular on-time invoices
Ensure your invoices are aligned with the formats used by your client’s payables department
Provide multiple payment methods
File the necessary preliminary notices throughout the project

In the case of construction payments, the adage prevention is better than cure applies. There are many reasons why payments get delayed or skipped, some malicious, some not. It’s in your best interest to ensure that you are doing everything from your end to promote timely payments and that you’re fully protected by rights granted to construction businesses by law. About the Author: Patrick Hogan is the CEO of Handle.com, where they build software that helps contractors and material suppliers with lien management and payment compliance. The biggest names in construction use Handle on a daily basis to save time and money while improving efficiency. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

July 30, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Relying upon precedent from the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court's denial of coverage based upon the policy's contractual-liability exclusion. Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12158 (5th Cir. June. 27, 2014). The Crownovers entered a construction contract with Arrow Development, Inc. to construct a home. Paragraph 23.1 of the contract contained a warranty-to-repair clause, which provided Arrow "would correct work . . . failing to conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents." After the work was completed, cracks began to appear in the walls and foundation of the Crownovers' home. Additional problems with the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system caused leaking in exterior lines and air ducts inside the home. When Arrow refused to correct the problems, the Crownovers initiated arbitration. The arbitrator found that the Crownovers had a meritorious claim for breach of the express warranty to repair contained in paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract. Damages were awarded. 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

#3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Michael R. Vellado and Nicole R. Kardassakis of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP analyzed the appeals case that “reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company (“ProBuilders”) and held that the ‘other insurance’ clause in the ProBuilders policy did not relieve it of its duty to participate in the defense of its insured, Pacific Trades Construction & Development, Inc. ('Pacific Trades')." Read the full story... Another discussion of the ProBuilders appeal ruling occurred on the California Construction Law Blog, written by Yas Omidi of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP. Omidi explained the appeal’s court decision: “In reversing the trial court’s decision, the appellate court characterized ProBuilder’s ‘other insurance’ clause as an ‘escape clause’—i.e., a clause that attempts to have coverage, paid for with the insured’s premiums, evaporate in the presence of other insurance.” Furthermore, she noted that “California public policy disfavors such clauses.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAA Seeks Largest Fine Yet on Drones in Near-Miss Crackdown

October 21, 2015 — Alan Levin – Bloomberg
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is proposing the largest fine to date against a drone operator as the agency cracks down on the booming use of unmanned aircraft in congested skies over populated areas. The FAA said Tuesday it was recommending a $1.9 million penalty against SkyPan International Inc., which made 65 drone flights from 2012 to 2014 in airspace above cities including New York. The company uses drones to photograph the prospective views from Manhattan high rises under construction, according to its website. The action comes as the FAA has struggled to enforce existing rules on drones and attempts to finalize the first regulations allowing small unmanned vehicles to operate commercially. Drone sightings by pilots, including close-calls with airliners, have surged from only a handful a month last year to over 100 per month. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alan Levin, Bloomberg

Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

November 26, 2014 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
On November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond. Background In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES