Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN

October 21, 2024 — Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute Resolver
Company: Pierce Atwood LLP Office Location: Boston, MA Licensed in: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California (inactive) Email: rtdunn@pierceatwood.com Website: https://www.pierceatwood.com/people/r-thomas-dunn Law School: McGeorge School of Law (2004 JD) Types of ADR services offered: Arbitration Affiliated ADR organizations: American Arbitration Association Geographic area served: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New England Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral. A: Arbitration and alternative forms to avoid and resolve disputes has interested me since law school. Serving as an arbitrator is rewarding both as a neutral helping people close out disputes, but also as an advocate as it reminds me about how best to communicate with the fact finder. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

January 05, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
As most litigators will tell you a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit needs to be able to prove both liability and damages to win a case. That is, you need to show both that the defendant is liable under the law and that you have suffered damages as a result. Proving one but not the other and you’ll lose the case. But there’s one other consideration that is just as important, albeit often elusive, and that is, collectability. Even if you win the case, if you can’t collect on the judgment, you might as well have lost. The following case, Wolf Metals, Inc. v. Rand Pacific Sales, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B264002 (October 25, 2016), describes some of the remedies available, procedures to follow, and difficulties confronted when obtaining a default judgment against a judgment-proof defendant. 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

Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

June 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are times where being too darn cute with your pleading allegations is unnecessary and does not work. But, the point is really that the cuteness is unnecessary. In a Miller Act payment bond dispute in Boneso Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc., 2018 WL 2387833 (N.D.Cal. 2018), a claimant asserted claims against a Miller Act payment bond surety for breach of the payment bond, breach of a subcontract, open account, and account stated. The question is why would the claimant sue the payment bond surety for breach of subcontract (when the subcontract was not with the surety), and open account and account stated. I have no clue, other than such claims appeared quite unnecessary when the claimant asserted an action on the Miller Act payment bond (which is what the surety is liable under — actions under the statutory payment bond). Such claims were dismissed. And, they should have been. 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

Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Things are looking up for Michigan home builders. Rovert Filka, the chief executive officer of the Home Builders Association of Michigan said that “home values are starting to rise as a result of so little production over the last five years.” The group anticipates that about 14,000 new homes will be built in Michigan over the next year. Jason Burton, owner of Price Right Builders, noted that the increase in building has been slow. “Locally we are seeing the climb, but it’s a slow climb,” he said. “We’ve got a long way to go to get back to where we were.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Court Strikes Down 'Persuader' Rule

November 23, 2016 — Pam Hunter McFarland – Engineering News-Record
In a victory for construction industry groups, a federal court has permanently blocked a U.S. Dept. of Labor rule requiring attorneys and other outside groups to disclose publicly that they provide advice to employers on how to comply with federal labor laws. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Hunter McFarland, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com

Recent Developments in Legislative Efforts To Combat Climate Change

October 30, 2023 — Dominick Weinkam & Robert B. Cimmino - ConsensusDocs
Governments across the United States have been increasingly integrating climate considerations into legislation affecting various sectors of the economy. The construction industry is no exception. Recent legislative developments at various levels of government are reshaping construction practices to mitigate the industries’ greenhouse gas emissions and vulnerability to climate-related risks. These developments include incentivizing eco-friendly construction projects, mandating stricter regulations to reduce carbon emissions, and enhancing building resilience to more severe weather events. Contractors must stay abreast of these developments to ensure compliance with new substantive and administrative requirements to remain competitive in a changing environment. Funding Greener Construction Projects: The Inflation Reduction Act The federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) enacted in August 2022 marked a significant milestone in the pursuit of greener construction. The IRA is widely considered to be the single largest investment into climate change in history, with potential ripple effects throughout the construction industry. The IRA allocates substantial funds for projects utilizing “low-carbon” materials, with an explicit focus on climate-conscious construction. This initiative aligns with the broader goal of curbing emissions from sectors like steel, concrete, and glass, which have been major contributors to the nation’s carbon footprint. Reprinted courtesy of Dominick Weinkam, Watt Tieder and Robert B. Cimmino, Watt Tieder Mr. Weinkam may be contacted at dweinkam@watttieder.com Mr. Cimmino may be contacted at rcimmino@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

July 05, 2021 — Caroline A. Harcourt, Natalie S. Starkman & Nika Bederman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In a previous post, we described how the New York City Climate Mobilization Act, 2019 (the CMA, or Local Laws 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 147 enacted in 2019) was passed with the goal of reducing New York City’s carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and by 80 percent by 2050 (as against a 2005 baseline as provided for in item 3 of Local Law 97). It is the most ambitious building emissions law to be enacted by any city in the world. The CMA impacts “Covered Buildings” (described below) and, besides contemplating the retrofitting of Covered Buildings to achieve energy efficiency and establishing a monitoring program for Covered Buildings, the CMA contemplates compliance by means of the purchase of carbon offset credits or renewable energy. (Note the new NYC Accelerator program, launched in 2012 by the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, provides guidance regarding energy-efficient upgrades to properties and emission reductions.) Pursuant to the CMA:

Beginning in 2024, Covered Buildings will have to meet the first emission targets, which are calculated by multiplying the gross floor area of each Covered Building by the occupancy classification as set forth in Local Law 97; and
In 2025, owners of Covered Buildings will need to establish compliance by submitting a report establishing such compliance (prepared by a certified design professional) to the newly created Office of Building Energy and Emissions Performance.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Caroline A. Harcourt, Pillsbury
Ms. Harcourt may be contacted at caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com

Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

July 13, 2020 — Ted R. Gropman & Cindy J. Lee - ConsensusDocs
On April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward. Brief Case Summary In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending. Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at ted.gropman@troutman.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at cindy.lee@troutman.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES