Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects

August 29, 2018 — Nicholas Karkazis - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
To ensure that construction contractors and subcontractors receive timely progress and retention payments, the California Legislature enacted statutes that impose deadlines and penalties on owners and direct (general) contractors who delay payments. (Cal. Civ. Code, §§ 8800, 8802, 8812, 8814; Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, 10262.5; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5.) However, there is an exception to these deadlines and penalties on both private and public projects. The exception allows an owner or direct contractor to withhold payment1 when there is a good faith dispute between an owner and a direct contractor or between a direct contractor and a subcontractor. (Civ. Code, §§ 8800, subd. (b), 8802, subd. (b), 8812, subd. (c), 8814, subd. (c); Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, subds. (c), (e), 10262.5, subd. (a); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5, subd. (a).) But the term “good faith dispute” has been a source of confusion where direct contractors owe subcontractors retention payments, but want to withhold the payment because of a dispute.2 California appellate courts were split, with one court finding that any type of bona fide dispute justified withholding, and another finding that only disputes related to the payment itself justified withholding. (Compare Martin Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1401 [any bona fide dispute could justify withholding] with East West Bank v. Rio School Dist. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 742 [disputes related to the payment itself may justify withholding].) In May 2018, the California Supreme Court clarified that for a direct contractor to withhold a retention payment on a private project, the good faith dispute must somehow relate to the payment itself. (United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1082, 1097-1098.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas Karkazis, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Karkazis may be contacted at nkarkazis@grsm.com

Mendocino Hospital Nearing Completion

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital is well underway on its plans to move to a larger facility. The new building in Willits, California, will be more than twice the size of the old building at 74,000 square feet. Construction has reached the halfway point after just over three months of construction. Despite that, plans are to put the facility into use in January 2015. The general contractor for the project is HBE Corporation. Rick Bockmann, HBE’s chief executive officer, said that the hospital was “on schedule and on budget.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Big Three: The 9th Circuit Joins The 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit in Holding That Sanctions For Bad-Faith Litigation Tactics Can Only Be Awarded Against Individual Lawyers and Not Law Firms

September 03, 2015 — Christopher B. Lloyd & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Law v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015 S.O.S. 13–56099 – filed August 27, 2015), the Ninth Circuit joined the shortlist of Circuit Courts to hold that sanctions for bad-faith litigation tactics under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 can only be sought against individual attorneys and not law firms. Section 1927 authorizes sanctions against “[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States … who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously….” On behalf of the client, an attorney with Kaass Law filed a complaint against ten different defendants, including Wells Fargo Bank, which moved to dismiss under F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6). Rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the initial complaint; Wells Fargo Bank filed a notice of non-opposition. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher B. Lloyd, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr.Lloyd may be contacted at clloyd@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

April 13, 2017 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
The consortium building the $3.2-billion Champlain Bridge in Montreal has sued Canada’s government for $93 million, claiming transportation officials gave it late notice of stricter load limits that could add to delay and make it liable for tens of millions of dollars in penalties, according to Canadian press reports and a stock analyst’s comments. A spokeswoman for the team’s lead firm, engineer-contractor SNC-Lavalin, confirms the March 28 filing in Quebec Superior Court but declined further comment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

October 10, 2013 — David M. McLain — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
The Colorado Pool case has been featured in two past blog entries, including: “An Arapahoe County District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retrospectively,” which discussed the case at the trial court level, and “Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy,” which discussed the case at the Court of Appeals level. In both instances, the courts held that retroactively applying C.R.S. C.R.S. § 13-20-808 to policies in effect prior to the date of the statute’s enactment would be impermissibly retrospective because it would change the coverage under the policy for which the parties had originally bargained. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
David M. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

March 27, 2019 — Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
A proposed copper and gold mine in Alaska could impact up to 12,000 acres of wetlands as well as local fisheries but would help meet a worldwide demand for copper, according to the draft environmental impact statement on the Pebble Mine in the Bristol Bay area of Alaska. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

Ways of Evaluating Property Damage Claims in Various Contexts

February 18, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Potential damages in a lawsuit may come in many forms depending on the facts of the case. Common damages include medical expenses, loss of earnings, property loss, physical pain, and mental suffering. Of the many damages Plaintiffs may claim, one of the most prevalent and recognizable is property damage. This article briefly discusses these types of damages which fall under two major categories – Real Property and Personal Property. Broadly speaking, “real property” means land, and “personal property” refers to all other objects or rights that may be owned. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines “real property” as: “Such things as are permanent, fixed, and immovable; lands, tenements, and hereditaments of all kinds, which are not annexed to the person or cannot be moved from the place in which they subsist. . . .” (Ballentine’s Law Dict. (3d ed. 2010).) “Personal property” is defined as: “Money, goods, and movable chattels . . . . All objects and rights which are capable of ownership except freehold estates in land, and incorporeal hereditaments issuing thereout, or exercisable within the same.” (Id. (emphasis added).) Real Property Real property may be damaged or “harmed” through trespass, permanent nuisance, or other tortious conduct. The general rule is that Plaintiffs may recover the lesser of the two following losses: (1) the decrease in the real property’s fair market value; or (2) the cost to repair the damage and restore the real property to its pre-trespass condition plus the value of any lost use. (Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc.) However, an exception to this general rule may be made if a Plaintiff has a personal reason to restore the real property to its former condition, sometimes called the “personal reason” exception. In such cases, a Plaintiff may recover the restoration costs even if the costs are greater than the decrease in the real property’s value, though the restoration cost must still be “reasonable” in light of the value of the real property before the injury and the actual damage sustained. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

August 17, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries & Andrea DeField - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On June 29, in a development that may fundamentally change the landscape for California businesses which have sustained COVID-19 related business interruption loss, two California legislators amended pending legislation to address several of the most hotly contested issues regarding insurance recovery for these devastating losses. The bill, Assembly Bill 1552, focuses on All-Risk property insurance policies. As amended, it would create a “rebuttable presumption” that COVID-19 was present on and caused physical damage to property which was the direct cause of business interruption. A similar rebuttable presumption would apply to orders of civil authority coverage and to ingress/egress coverage. The bill would further prohibit COVID-19 from being construed as a pollutant or contaminant for purposes of any policy exclusion unless the exclusion specifically referred to viruses. The bill would apply to any All-Risk policy in effect on or after March 4, 2020 and is written to satisfy the standards for an “urgency” statute, taking effect immediately upon being signed into law. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES