Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

June 06, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Musings, I have often (some might say too often) discussed the fact that in Virginia (as well as other places), your construction contract language will be strictly enforced. I have also discussed the need for attorney fees provisions as well as other language in order to mitigate your risk as a contractor. A recent case from the City of Roanoke Circuit Court discussed both of these principals and their intersection. In LAM Enterprises, LLC v. Roofing Solutions, Inc., the Roanoke Court looked at a contract between LAM and Roofing Solutions, Inc. that contained two provisions of the construction contract between the parties. The first provision limited the liability of Roofing Solutions to the contract price. The second provision is a relatively typical “prevailing party” attorney fees provision in which the winner of any lawsuit would be entitled to collect its attorney fees. For the specific language of these provisions, I commend the opinion linked above for your reading. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

April 05, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding there was no duty to defend or indemnify a tenant/insured's contract-related claims. Erie Ins. Exch. v. Little Ducklings Daycare Associates, LP, 2017 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 22 (Pa. D. Jan. 25, 2017). Little Ducklings Daycare Preschool ("tenant") leased from the Estate of Carmen Neri ("landlord") premises to run a day care center for five years. The lease identified two of tenant's members, Maryanne L. Hatzold and Thomas Hatzold, as guarantors for the lease. The Hatzolds ("Guarantors") delivered to the landlord a written lease guaranty agreement. The guarantee assured the full payment and satisfaction of the rent owed under the lease. 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

New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

June 11, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Owners of a 230-unit New Jersey Condominium filed suit “against the Federal Emergency Management Agency and insurers and developers, seeking coverage and alleging the building was constructed with defects that led to severe flood damage during Hurricane Sandy.” According to Law 360, “[t]he complaint from 700 Grove Condominium Association Inc. alleges that common elements of the building were damaged and will continue to be damaged from floods because of defects caused by its contractors and architects.” The owners, according to the complaint, alleged that they “made a timely claim to its insurers, but [the insurers] denied coverage.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Built on a program for safer school buildings, schools in Neenan County, Colorado have been shown to have mild-to-moderate structural problems, rendering some of them unsafe. The Denver Post reports that a third-party review of schools built by the Neenan Company has shown structural issues in all fifteen school buildings.

One school, Meeker Elementary, has been closed as it could collapse under high winds or during an earthquake. Sargent Junior-Senior High School is in use, but there are plans to evacuate the buildings if winds exceed 25 mile per hour. Two schools have roofs that are unable to bear expected loads of snow during the winter.

The Neenan Company says that the school buildings are not up to their standards and is working with the school districts to repair the buildings. Repairs are expected to be complete by August.

Read the full story…

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

FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

February 05, 2015 — Clea Benson – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s overseer wants to allow debt cuts for a narrow group of borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth. The trick is figuring out a way to do it without incurring costs for taxpayers. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Melvin L. Watt told reporters Wednesday that he is still studying the idea of reducing principal on properties with depressed values, a step backed by housing advocates and Democratic lawmakers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Clea Benson, Bloomberg

Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

September 17, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s not like we didn’t warn you. In Jones v. Sorenson, Case No. C084870 (August 2, 2018), homeowner Danita Sorenson discovered to her chagrin that she had unwittingly become the employer of Mary Jones, who had been hired by Odette Miranda doing business as Designs by Leo to trim some trees, and was liable for Jones’ injuries when Jones fell off a ladder provided by Miranda. “How can this be?” you might ask. The reason, as it turns out, is simple. Miranda was required to hold a Class D-49 Tree Service Contractor’s license in order to contract with Sorenson to trim her trees, and because Miranda did not hold that license (or, for that matter, any contractor’s license), Sorenson automatically was deemed the employer of Jones under Labor Code Section 2750.5 and, therefore, liable for her injuries. 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

Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

April 10, 2019 — Parker A. Lewton - Smith Currie
A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

April 25, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Writing in Oregon’s Daily Journal of Commerce, David Anderson looks at the aftermath of the case Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc. In that case, Anderson notes that “the homeowners hired a contractor to build their house, and subsequently discovered extensive water damage” “after expiration of the time to sue for breach of contract.” The homeowners claimed negligence. Oregon’s Supreme Court concluded that “homeowners only had to prove that the contractor negligently caused reasonably foreseeable harm to the homeowner’s property.”

Anderson views this decision as leading to two risks for contractors. “First, contractors can be held liable in tort for breaching building code standards; second, they can be held liable for violating the often-difficult-to-define ‘reasonable care’ standard.” But here, “contract can be king.” The Oregon Supreme Court noted that the contractor “could have avoided exposure to the general ‘reasonable care’ standard by more carefully defining its obligations in the original construction contract.”

He notes that contractors who fail to define their obligations or use generic definitions “may be exposing themselves to a more vague scope of liability.”