Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That’s Not the Most Interesting Part

November 01, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
While construction projects can get messy, they don’t get much messier than the next case, which, while involving a fairly limited legal issue, has such jaw dropping facts it’s worth a read if only to make you feel a bit better about your own project. The Clark Bros. Case In Clark Bros, Inc. v. North Edwards Water District, 77 Cal.App.5th 801 (2022), general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. was awarded over $3 million in damages against a local water district on a water treatment facility project. The Project The North Edwards Water District serves approximately 220 customers in the Mojave Desert. It has one employee, Dollie Dimples Kostopoulos. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. The drinking water it provides to its customers contains three times the legal limit of arsenic, a carcinogen. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Willowbrook, a condominium complex in Lakewood Ranch, Florida has had problems with water intrusion. Now the builder is having problems with some of the residents. National home builder KB Homes is alleging that a pair of Willowbrook home owners who created a web site about their problems have violated federal cybersquatting laws, as the web site names they have registered are close to that KB Homes. The suit alleges that Andrew Smith and Daniel Koehler hope to either get KB Homes to purchase the web site or to buy back their homes. The lawsuit also alleges that three other individuals, William Crismon, Patrick McGettigan, and Armando Oyola-Delgado, conspired to intercept e-mails between KB Home and Dueall Construction. KB Homes claims that the three gained access to a WiFi hotspot used by Dueall. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

August 13, 2019 — Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocs
Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Athens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber Attack

January 21, 2025 — Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-Record
In November, Athens, Ohio, officials sent nearly $722,000 to a bank account they believed was set up by its contractor, Pepper Construction, to receive payment for its work on a fire station headquarters. The request was actually a sophisticated cyber attack that took advantage of a construction payment system that often does not allow clients processing invoices to directly know those behind the email addresses making the requests. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

How Mushrooms Can Be Used To Make Particle Board Less Toxic

April 15, 2015 — Sam Grobart – Bloomberg
Think much about particle board? You should. It’s in everything from the chairs we sit on to the houses we live in. Problem is, the close cousin of plywood is usually made using urea formaldehyde to help bind the wood particles together. The substance has been classified as a known human carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency. One company, Ecovative Design in upstate New York, has figured out how to replace urea formaldehyde with with an unlikely alternative: mushrooms. Not whole mushrooms like you'd find on a pizza, but the root structure of mushrooms, called mycelium. Mycelium does as good a job as any binding wood particles, but will break down into harmless organic matter when disposed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sam Grobart, Bloomberg

Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

January 05, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
A performance bond is a valuable tool designed to guarantee the performance of the principal of the contract made part of the bond. But, it is only a valuable tool if the obligee (entity the bond is designed to benefit) understands that it needs to properly trigger the performance bond if it is looking to the bond (surety) to remedy and pay for a contractual default. If the performance bond is not properly triggered and a suit is brought upon the bond then the obligee could be the one materially breaching the terms of the bond. This means the obligee has no recourse under the performance bond. This is a huge downside when the obligee wanted the security of the performance bond, and reimbursed the bond principal for the premium of the bond, in order to address and remediate a default under the underlying contract. A recent example of this downside can be found in the Southern District of Florida’s decision in Arch Ins. Co. v. John Moriarty & Associates of Florida, Inc., 2016 WL 7324144 (S.D.Fla. 2016). Here, a general contractor sued a subcontractor’s performance bond surety for an approximate $1M cost overrun associated with the performance of the subcontractor’s subcontract (the contract made part of the subcontractor’s performance bond). The surety moved for summary judgment arguing that the general contractor failed to property trigger the performance bond and, therefore, materially breached the bond. The trial court granted the summary judgment in favor of the performance bond surety. Why? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

March 09, 2020 — Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

Condo Developers Buy in Washington despite Construction Defect Litigation

October 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Marc Stiles writing for Puget Sound Business Journal stated that “[t]he belief that contractors have been scared off by the legal liabilities that come with [condo] projects doesn't seem to hold water.” He interviewed Suzi Morris, of Lowe Enterprises, who plans on building a new condo tower in Seattle this November. Morris stated that they didn’t have any problems getting construction bids for the 24-story tower. According to the Puget Sound Business Journal, “The development team is trying to head off construction defect claims by planning and documenting with photos their work.” Stiles did admit that an unnamed “source in Seattle who consults on condo projects knows of two large general contracting companies that won't bid on condo projects because of” potential construction defect litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES