SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Owners and Contractors Beware: Pennsylvania (Significantly) Strengthens Contractor Payment Act

June 13, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Yesterday, Governor Tom Wolf signed into law House Bill 566 which make major changes to Pennsylvania’s Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. Owners and General Contractors that fail to take head of the changes could face significant financial consequences. The Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, known as CAPSA or simply the Payment Act, was passed into law in 1994. The intent was “to cure abuses within the building industry involving payments due from owners to contractors, contractors to subcontractors, and subcontractors to other subcontractors.” Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P., 984 A.2d 497, 500 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). In reality, abuses still occurred. While the Payment Act purportedly dictated a statutory right to payment within a certain amount of time and imposes stiff penalties for failure make payment, including 1% interest per month, 1% penalty per month, and reasonable attorneys fees, the language of the Payment Act left recalcitrant contractors with wiggle room. Particularly, the Payment Act allowed owners and higher tier subcontractors to withhold payment “deficiency items according to the terms of the construction contract” provided it notified the contractor “of the deficiency item within seven calendar days of the date that the invoice is received.” 73 P.S. Section 506. The problem was that the Payment Act did not expressly state where the notice must be in written, what it must say, and what happened if notice was not given. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

In Matter of First Impression, California Appellate Court Finds a Claim for a Real Estate Professional’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty is Assignable

January 28, 2025 — Briane Slome & Pamela Albanese - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
San Diego, Calif. (January 17, 2025) - The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a judgment entered in favor of real estate brokers who were sued for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of residential real estate in Malibu. The Court of Appeal found the trial court erred when it rendered judgment in favor of the brokers on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims that had been assigned to her. The trial court reasoned that claims for breach of fiduciary duty against real estate brokers are highly personalized tort causes of action, which cannot be assigned. The Court of Appeal disagreed. In a case of first impression, it held that a cause of action for breach of a real estate broker’s fiduciary duties, which seeks damages related to property rights and pecuniary interests, is assignable. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Lazar v. Bishop, issued December 19, 2024, involved a unique set of facts. The seller bought the property in 2006. His daughter, Laura Lazar, lived at the property. The seller hired a real estate broker to sell the home. The broker listed the property for $4.2 million. Thereafter, she persuaded the seller to drop the listing price to $3.15 million, the price at which it was ultimately sold. Reprinted courtesy of Briane Slome, Lewis Brisbois and Pamela Albanese, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Albanese may be contacted at Pamela.Albanese@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill

April 11, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
Michigan lawmakers have passed legislation appropriating $4.7 billion for state infrastructure, including more than $1 billion for various water projects.About $750 million will go toward drinking water infrastructure such as projects to replace lead service lines or remove contaminants like PFA substances, potentially harmful chemicals used in industrial and consumer products that are have been found in water. 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

---

Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord

October 17, 2022 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In J&J Fish on Ctr. Str., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-644-bhl, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16361, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (District Court) recognized that “[t]here will be no further fish fries on Center Street until someone pays to repair the collapsed floor at J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. (J&J Fish).” The contenders were: 1) J&J Fish; 2) its’ insurer, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Insurer); and 3) J&J Fish’s landlord, Vision Land, LLC (Vision). Recognizing Insurer’s right to subrogate against Vision based on the terms of the parties’ lease, the District Court held Insurer owed J&J Fish coverage for the losses it sustained, but that Insurer could subrogate against Vision for anything it had to pay J&J Fish. In J&J Fish, Vision and J&J Fish signed a lease (Lease) for a building (the Building) located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Lease required Vision to “purchase and keep in full force and effect on the building(s) . . . insurance against fire and such other risks as may be included in all-risks policies . . .” Vision, however, never obtained any insurance on the Building. Pursuant to the Lease, Vision also agreed to “maintain and repair the structure including the slab floor and exterior walls of the Premises.” With respect to J&J Fish, the Lease required J&J Fish to maintain “Physical Damage insurance, including but not limited to fire . . . and all other risks of direct physical loss as insured . . . for the full replacement cost of all additions, improvements (including leasehold improvements) and alterations to the Premises.” J&J Fish purchased a commercial property and casualty insurance policy (the Policy) from Insurer. The Policy covered “additions, improvements . . . and alterations” as the Lease required. In addition, it insured the Building itself against “collapse,” subject to certain exceptions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

---

How to Build a Water-Smart City

August 23, 2021 — Chris Malloy - Bloomberg
Cities across time have stretched to secure water. The Romans built aqueducts, the Mayans constructed underground storage chambers, and Hohokam farmers dug more than 500 miles of canals in what is now the U.S. Southwest. Today’s cities use portfolios of technologies to conserve supply — everything from 60-story dams and chemicals to centrifugal pumps and special toilets. And yet, the cities of tomorrow will have to do more. A recent United Nations report on drought says climate change is increasing the frequency, severity and duration of droughts, which contribute to food insecurity, poverty and inequality. The report also asserts that “drought has been the single longest-term physical trigger of political change in 5,000 years of recorded human history.” It calls for urgent action and a transformation in governance to manage modern drought risk more effectively. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Malloy, Bloomberg

---

New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Morrison Bridge in Multnomah County, Oregon, has added a new company to their lawsuit regarding problems with the slip-resistant FRP decking, according to The Oregonian. The county has already named the installer, the supplier, and the manufacturer. Now, they have added Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, the company “that contracted with the decking manufacturer to provide engineering and design for the project.” The Oregonian reported that “the county has identified a construction design professional who can testify that Hardesty & Hanover made errors that contributed to the Morrison Bridge's damage,” according to the amended complaint. First, Conway construction (the deck installer) filed suit against the decking manufacturer and supplier. Then, the “county inserted itself into the suit last fall,” stated The Oregonian, and “is seeking more than $2 million to repair or replace the decking, plus damages.” A trial is scheduled for February 2015. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Instructs Property Carriers to Advise Insureds on Business Interruption Coverage

April 13, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) took the unusual step last week of instructing all property/casualty insurers to provide information on commercial property insurance and details on business interruption coverage in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. The notice is here. The notice recognizes that policyholders have urgent questions about the business interruption coverage under their policies. Insurers must explain to policyholders the benefits under their policies and the protections provided in connection with COVID-19. The explanation to policyholders is to include the following relevant information.

What type of commercial property insurance or otherwise related insurance policy does the insured hold?

Does the insured's policy provide "business interruption" coverage? If so, provide the "covered perils" under such policy. Please also indicate whether the policy contains a requirement for "physical damage or loss" and explain whether contamination related to a pandemic may constitute "physical damage or loss." Please describe what type of damage or loss is sufficient for coverage under the policy.

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

---

Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Colorado Court of Appeals looked at that state’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act in determining if a general contractor could add subcontractors as third-party defendants to a construction defect lawsuit. Shaw Construction, LLC was the general contraction of the Roslyn Court condominium complex, and was sued by the homeowners’ association in a construction defect case. United Builder Services was the drywall subcontractor on the project. MB Roofing had installed roofs, gutters, and downspouts. The certificate of occupancy for the last building was issued on March 10, 2004. The project architect certified completion of all known remaining architectural items in June, 2004.



The HOA filed a claim against the developers of the property on January, 21, 2009. A week later, the HOA amended its complaint to add Shaw, the general contractor. Shaw did not file its answer and third-party complaint until March 29, 2010, sending its notice of claim under the CDARA on March 30.



The subcontractors claimed that the six-year statute of limitations had ended twenty days prior. Shaw claimed that the statute of limitations ran until six years after the architect’s certification, or that the HOA’s suit had tolled all claims.



The trial court granted summary judgment to the subcontractors, determining that “substantial completion occurs ‘when an improvement to real property achieves a degree of completion at which the owner can conveniently utilize the improvement of the purpose it was intended.’”



The appeals court noted that “Shaw correctly points out that the CDARA does not define ‘substantial completion.’” The court argued that Shaw’s interpretation went against the history and intent of the measure. “Historically, a construction professional who received a complaint responded by ‘cross-nam[ing] or add[ing] everybody and anybody who had a part to play in the construction chain.’” The court concluded that the intent of the act was to prevent unnamed subcontractors from being tolled.



The court further rejected Shaw’s reliance on the date of the architect’s certification as the time of “substantial completion,” instead agreeing with the trial court that “the architect’s letter on which Shaw relies certified total completion.”



The appeals court upheld the trial court’s determination that the statute of limitation began to run no later than March 10, 2004 and that Shaw’s complaint of March 29, 2010 was therefore barred. The summary judgment was upheld.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---