Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

December 02, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
A new year brings with it promise and challenges. The promise is a relatively clean slate and the thought that 2015 will be a great year for construction professionals and those that assist them. The challenges come from the almost inevitable issues that can arise on a construction site with its many moving parts and enough potential pitfalls to make even the most optimistic construction attorney, contractor, subcontractor or supplier think that Murphy was an optimist. In order to assist with the potential challenges, this post will be the first in a series of “musings” on the best way to handle a payment dispute arising from a construction contract. This week’s post will discuss what the first steps should be once a payment dispute or claim arises. We’ll assume that you, as a construction contractor, have taken early advantage of the services of a construction lawyer and have carefully reviewed your contract for issues before signing that contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

2016 California Construction Law Upate

December 10, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The California State Legislature saw the introduction of 2,297 bills during the first half of the 2015-2016 legislative session of which 1,010 bills were signed into law. For contractors, the bill (now law), having the most immediate effect is SB 467, which increases the license bond amount required of all contractors from $12,500 to $15,000. In addition to licensing changes, 2015 saw the enactment of a number of bills providing for alternative project delivery methods from design-build, to CM at risk, to public-private partnerships, and even the expanded use of enhanced infrastructure financing districts as the state enters its fourth year since the abolishment of redevelopment agencies. 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

A “Supplier to a Supplier” on a California Construction Project Sometimes Does Have a Right to a Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond Claim

October 01, 2014 — William L. Porter - The Porter Law Group
For purposes of seeking payment on a construction related project in the California construction industry, the proper legal classification of the party seeking payment is of key importance. Whether one in contract with a prime contractor is a subcontractor or a material supplier determines the availability for mechanics’ liens, stop payment notices and payment bond claims. Generally, those in contract with subcontractors have the ability to assert mechanics liens, stop payment notices and payment bond claims against the owner, general contractor and/or sureties. On the other hand, those who supply materials to material suppliers are generally not entitled to assert a mechanics lien, stop payment notice or payment bond claim. The “rule” has generally been stated as: “A supplier to a supplier has no lien rights.” However, this rule is not always true. The proper classification of an entity as either a subcontractor or a material supplier can be difficult. Simply because a prime contractor hires a licensed contractor to furnish labor, materials, equipment or services on a project does not mean that the party hired is actually a “subcontractor” as a matter of law. Conversely, even though a material supplier may not have a contractors’ license, he may still be classified as a subcontractor based on his scope of work. Based on recent case law, the method of determining whether an entity is a subcontractor or a material supplier has been clarified. The classification will depend on the scope of work that the hired party actually agreed to perform on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

North Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest Storm

October 16, 2018 — Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
There’s no big wall planned to protect North Carolina’s coast from storm surge. There’s no massive tunnel system proposed to keep floodwaters away from populated areas. There are no grant-funded resilience competitions to help the state plan to manage water more effectively. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims

June 18, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. (No. B245961, filed 5/16/14, ord. pub. 6/13/14), a California appeals court held that the insured's use of the wrong steel seismic reinforcement hooks in construction of a mixed-use building was not an occurrence, and did not result in covered property damage. Regional Steel was the structural steel subcontractor on a 14-story mixed-use project in North Hollywood, California. Regional supplied plans which were approved by the developer and its structural engineers for installation of steel reinforcements, including seismic reinforcement hooks, to be encased in concrete. During construction, City inspectors determined that the plans called for the wrong hooks, necessitating repairs to finished portions of the work and delays in further construction. This ultimately resulted in a lawsuit between the developer, Regional Steel, the concrete subcontractor, the structural engineer and a quality assurance inspector. The project was insured under a wrap policy issued to the developer, with Regional named as an additional insured. The court rejected an argument that the wrap endorsement fundamentally changed the insurance, and the issue boiled down to whether incorporation of the wrong hooks, the damage caused by tearing out concrete to replace the hooks, or the resulting loss of use, triggered coverage. Liberty asserted that no damage to property was alleged and the purely economic losses caused by the need to reopen the poured concrete to correct the tie hook problem did not constitute "property damage" within the meaning of the policy. Liberty further posited that the tie hook problem did not constitute an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy because the alleged damage was not caused by an accident. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Chris Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pre-Covid Construction Contracts Unworkable as Costs Surge, Webuild Says

October 17, 2022 — Angus Whitley - Bloomberg
Infrastructure construction contracts signed before the pandemic have become widely unworkable because of the surging cost of labor and materials, supply-chain blockages and difficulties in securing manpower, according to builder Webuild SpA. Milan-based Webuild is wrestling with a 2019 agreement with the Australian government to construct the country’s largest hydroelectric power station for A$5.1 billion ($3.2 billion). It’s meant to be completed by 2026. The Snowy 2.0 project, in the Snowy mountains about six hours’ drive south of Sydney, has come to highlight the challenges of completing large-scale projects on terms that were struck before Covid-19, and before Russia invaded Ukraine. Webuild’s Asia-Pacific director, Marco Assorati, said the value of the Snowy contract, as well as certain other parameters, need to be changed to reflect the current market. He declined to comment specifically on media reports that the consortium has asked the Australian government for an extra A$2.2 billion to complete the work and that the project is 18 months behind schedule. “It is challenging,” Assorati said. “I think clients understand this conversation must happen and there must be a way to cope with unforeseen increases in cost,” Assorati said. “It’s not needed only on the Snowy project. It’s affecting projects everywhere globally.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Angus Whitley, Bloomberg

Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

March 12, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New York Court of Appeals determined that a two year period for obtaining replacement costs for damage to property was unenforceable where the property could not be reasonably replaced in two years. Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2014 WL 551251 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2014). Plaintiff's office building was severely damaged in a fire on February 23, 2007. It cost more than a million dollars to restore the building to its previous condition. Plaintiff had $1 million in coverage from Peerless. The policy provided that replacement costs for any loss would be paid after the damaged property was repaired. The insured was required to make the repairs as soon as possible. Further, the policy provided that any legal action against the insurer had to be brought within two years of the loss. Peerless paid the "actual cash value" of the destroyed building pursuant to the policy in the amount of $757,812.50. Peerless informed the plaintiff that it would have to provide documentation of the completion of repairs to collect the full replacement value, another $242,187.50. 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

Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party

November 18, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The plaintiff insurer's motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order that defendant insurer was obligated to defend a non-party as an additional insured was granted. Am Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 2019 N. Y. Misc. LEXIS 4145 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. July 25, 2019). Quality Building Construction, LLC was the contractor hired to work on exterior facade of a building owned by Central Park West Corporation. The underlying complaint alleged that Quality caused plastic spacers and pedestals used for the penthouse terrace to fall down the roof drain riser. A clog and rainwater backup resulted in water damage to apartment 8A. The resulting damage was allegedly due to the clogged roof drain riser. Quality subcontracted the work to Mega State, Inc. The subcontract required Mega to indemnify and hold Quality harmless against claims in connection with Mega's work, as well as name Quality as an additional insured on a primary, non-contributory bases under Mega's CGL policy. Burlington issued a policy to Mega naming Quality as an additional insured. American Empire issued a CGL policy to Quality. Quality was sued in the underlying action, but Mega was not. American Empire tendered a demand for coverage to Mega and Burlington, relying on the agreement between Quality and Mega. Burlington responded that Mega was not liable for the alleged damages. American Empire sued Burlington. Subsequently, Burlington accepted the tender to defend Quality in the underlying action, and reserved rights as to whether Burlington's policy was primary and on the question of indemnification. American Empire agreed to withdraw its suit if Burlington would modify its reservation of rights. Burlington refused. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES