SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

June 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. 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

---

An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

December 20, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to insurance contracts, there is a rule of law that states, “where interpretation is required by ambiguity in insurance contracts[,] the insured will be favored.” Pride Clean Restoration, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated another way: ambiguities in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer. With this rule of law in mind, insureds oftentimes try to argue ambiguity even when there is not one. This was the situation in Pride Clean Construction. In this case, the property insurance policy contained a mold exclusion that stated the policy did NOT insure for “a. loss caused by mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism of any type, nature, or description including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health; or b. the cost or expense of monitoring, testing, removal, encapsulation, abatement, treatment or handling of mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism as referred to in a) above.” Not only did the policy not insure for loss caused by mold, it went further to state it was NOT insuring for any mold testing or abatement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Making the Construction Industry a Safer place for Women

February 22, 2018 — Laura Parsons - CDJ STAFF
Women make up 47 percent of the total U.S. workforce yet they only hold approximately 9 percent of construction jobs nationwide. Because of this minority, women endure health and safety issues that men usually don’t, according to Safety.BLR.com’s article “OSHA renews alliance to protect women in construction.” The main areas that women face problems in the construction industry are healthy, safety and workplace culture. Women are potentially exposed to sexual harassment, demeaning remarks, and bodily assaults. Most of personal protective equipment (PPE) and tools are made for the typical male body to use and operate and are too heavy or oversized for many women. The National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC) partnered with OSHA in 2013 and just renewed their alliance aiming to improve upon workplace intimidation and violence as well as sanitation and PPE. The partnership is committed “to providing NAWIC members and others with information, guidance, and access to training resources that will help them protect the health and safety of workers, and understand the rights of workers and the responsibilities of employers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act).” This will be achieved by the implementation of national rules, laws, and standards as well as the circulation of preventative information. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

So, You Have a Judgment Against a California Contractor or Subcontractor. What Next? How Can I Enforce Payment?

May 04, 2020 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The Contractors’ State License Board (“CSLB”) represents the interests of the public in California construction matters. In the field of California construction, the CSLB is all powerful. The agency has the right to suspend the license of any contractor or subcontractor who does not pay on a construction related judgment against it. If you are successful in obtaining a court judgment against a contractor or a subcontractor in a construction-related case, you can utilize the services of the CSLB to suspend the contractors’ license of that contractor or subcontractor until the judgment has been paid. Once the license is suspended, the contractor or subcontractor has no legal right to work as a contractor or subcontractor and can even be arrested for doing so. Details on using the CSLB to suspend the license of a contractor or subcontractor who has a construction-related judgment against it can be accessed at this particular CSLB link: CSLB – Judgment. On receipt of notice of the construction-related judgment, the CSLB will either suspend the contractors’ license of any contractor or subcontractor who does not pay on the judgment or who does not appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeals or file bankruptcy within 90 days. There also exists an opportunity for the licensed debtor to file a bond with the CSLB. The bond will either have to be renewed annually or the judgment paid, whichever comes first. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects

November 23, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court determined the general contractor was not covered for construction defects despite allegations of damage to personal property. Wesfield Ins. Co. v. West Van Buren, LLC, 59 N.E. 2d 877, (Ill. Ct. App. 2016). The developer constructed a condominium development in Chicago. The installation of the roof was contracted to Total Roofing. Total Roofing agreed to insure and indemnify the developer against liability for Total Roofing's work. Total Roofing obtained a CGL policy with Westfield Insurance Company listing the developer as an additional 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

---

Think Before you Execute that Release – the Language in the Release Matters!

June 17, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you execute a release in exchange for payment or other consideration, remember the language in the release means something. THE RELEASE LANGUAGE MATTERS! And the meaning in the release may be way more than you intended so please make sure you truly digest and consider release language before executing. This sentiment could not be truer than in the 2009 decision Bell BCI Company v. United States, 570 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In this case, a contractor entered into a modification (change order) with the government. The modification included the following language: increase the contract amount by $2,296,963 … as full and equitable adjustment for the remaining direct and indirect costs of the Floor 4 Fit-out (EWO 240–R1) and full and equitable adjustment for all delays resulting from any and all Government changes transmitted to the Contractor on or before August 31, 2000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Contractor Disputes Report Amid Amazon Warehouse Collapse Lawsuit

May 02, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A contractor facing a lawsuit related to the December partial collapse of an Amazon.com Inc. warehouse that was hit by a tornado is pushing back on claims in a fire marshal’s report that highlighted possible “significant structural issues” with the building. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

General Liability Alert: ADA Requirements Pertaining to Wall Space Adjacent to Interior Doors Clarified

February 26, 2015 — Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond (No. 12-56727, filed February 19, 2015) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a department store related to the necessary moving clearance for an interior restroom door pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff, Chris Kohler, is paraplegic and requires the use of a wheelchair to move in public. On two separate days in May 2011, Kohler used the restroom inside the Bed Bath & Beyond store in Riverside, California. Of relevance to the appeal, Kohler contends there was less than ten inches of strike-side wall space on the pull side of Bed Bath & Beyond’s restroom door which allegedly made it difficult for Mr. Kohler to pull open the restroom door by pushing off the strike-side wall with one hand while pulling the door handle with the other. He also contends there was less than three inches of strike-side wall or floor space on the push side of the door, making it difficult for Kohler to open the door from the push side. The door at issue did not have a latch which would stop the door from freely swinging on a hinge. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---