Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

May 16, 2018 — Christopher M. Horton - Smith Currie
All general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount. Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher M. Horton, Smith Currie
Mr. Horton may be contacted at cmhorton@smithcurrie.com

Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

February 04, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Midview Local Schools Board of Education in Grafton, Ohio, “filed a lawsuit asking Lorain County Common Pleas Court to order the Ohio School Facilities Commission to help pay for repairs on three new schools,” according to The Morning Journal. Scott Goggin, Midview’s Superintendent, told The Morning Journal: “Water-stained ceilings and weeping windows in three new elementary schools, built with financial help and cooperation of the OSFC Expedited Local Partnership Program, irritated the district for months.” “The lawsuit,” as reported by The Morning Journal “claimed other school districts received financial help from the state when correcting repairs to their schools built through the same program.” Furthermore, the lawsuit stated that “OSFC failed to assess the total classroom facilities needs of the school district, and to share the costs of repairing defects.” The Morning Journal reported, “The lawsuit asks for restitution of the state’s share of correcting the construction defects, the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorney’s fees, and further relief the court decides is just and fair.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

September 17, 2015 — William L. Porter, Esq. – Porter Law Group Bulletin
The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California private works construction project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. As noted below, in order to pursue this remedy, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). 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

Some Work Cannot be Included in a Miller Act Claim

June 28, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The Miller Act is close to my heart here at Construction Law Musings. Payment bond claims under the Miller Act help protect subcontractors on construction projects where the national government or its agencies are the owners of the property and therefore mechanic’s liens are unavailable. Even where you follow the proper claims process under this statute, the question remains as to what sorts of costs can be included in the claim. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Alexandria, VA gives some insight into the limits of claims under the federal Miller Act. In Dickson v Forney Enterprises, Inc. et. al., the Court looked at the question of whether costs of a project manager’s purely clerical duties can be included and correspondingly whether performing those duties can extend the relevant one-year limitations period for filing suit. 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

Buy American Under President Trump: What to Know and Where We’re Heading

August 20, 2019 — Jamie Oberg - ConsensusDocs
On January 31, 2019, President Trump signed an Executive Order on Strengthening Buy-American Preferences for Infrastructure Projects, placing continued emphasis on the importance of “the use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States.” This order builds upon the President’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order, which he issued in April of 2017. The 2017 Order increased enforcement of standing Buy American laws and called for federal agencies to explore new possibilities regarding domestic preferences. In part, the 2017 Order required every agency to “scrupulously monitor, enforce, and comply with Buy American laws,” and to minimize the use of waivers of these laws. The 2019 Order instructs federal agencies to develop rules to encourage contractors to comply with these preferences to the maximum extent practicable in any infrastructure project that receives any indirect federal government assistance. This includes recipients of loans, loan guarantees, grants, insurance subsidies or other forms of financing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jamie Oberg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Oberg may be contacted at joberg@pecklaw.com

Can a Non-Signatory Invoke an Arbitration Provision?

February 02, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
As you know from prior postings, arbitration is a creature of contract. Hence, if you want your disputes to be resolved through arbitration, as opposed to litigation, make sure to include an arbitration provision in your agreement that covers all disputes arising out of or relating to the agreement. Under certain circumstances, a non-signatory to an agreement wants to invoke an arbitration clause in the agreement. The non-signatory will move to compel a signatory to the agreement (with an arbitration provision) to arbitrate a dispute with the non-signatory. Can a non-signatory do this? Yes, under certain circumstances. 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

Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case

July 11, 2022 — Scott Hennigh - Hennigh Law Corporation
LOS ANGELES, July 08, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hennigh Law Corporation has announced that, after an over four-year battle in and out of court, a three arbitrator panel issued a 93-page interim award in finding Viracon, Inc., liable for $13,682,840 in direct damages for defrauding the owner of the premier office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe. The matter now enters the second phase, where the arbitration panel will rule on the amount of punitive damages to assess, as well as attorney fees and interest. Scott Hennigh, trial attorney, states, "The California construction industry is very robust with high standards. The arbitration panel appears to have recognized that California law does not tolerate large out-of-state companies misleading customers. They appear poised to send a message to Viracon about its lack of corporate responsibility." The premier Class-A office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe, serves high-end tenants in entertainment industries such as Warner Brothers. Constructed in 2009, the 13 exterior curtain wall of the 13-story building is encased in seamless glass panels. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Hennigh, Hennigh Law Corporation
Mr. Hennigh may be contacted at Scott.hennigh@hennighlaw.com

Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

August 01, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court erred in placing the burden on the policyholder to establish depreciation in determining the actual cash value of the loss. SFR Serv., LLC v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 3570 (Fla. Ct. App. May 26, 2023). The insureds' roof was damaged by Hurricane Irma. They submitted their claim to their insurer, Tower Hill. The cost of repair was assessed at $7,726.94, below the amount of the deductible. Therefore, there was no recovery under the policy. The insureds assigned their claim to SFR Services, LLC, their roofing contractor. SFR submitted a claim to Tower Hill for $162,083.84. Tower Hill refused to pay and SFR sued. 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