Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California

November 09, 2020 — Candace Matson - Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
Contractors performing work in California are required to be licensed by the California State License Board (“CSLB”). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §7065. Except for sole proprietors, contractors are typically licensed through “qualifiers,” i.e., officers or employees who take a licensing exam and meet other requirements to become licensed on behalf of the contractor’s company. Contractors who perform work in California without being properly licensed are subject to a world of hurt, including civil and criminal penalties (see, e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7028, 7028.6, 7028.7, 7117, and Cal. Labor Code §§ 1020-1022), and the inability to maintain a lawsuit to recover compensation for their work. Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 7031(a); Hydra Tech Systems Ltd. v. Oasis Water Park, 52 Cal.3rd 988 (1991). But arguably the worst ramification of not being property licensed is that established in Business & Professions Code Section 7031(b), which provides that any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action for the return of all compensation paid for the performance of the work, commonly known as “disgorgement.” This remedy is particularly harsh (often described as “draconian”) because it makes no allowance for the fact that an unlicensed contractor will likely have already paid out the bulk of its compensation to its subcontractors, suppliers and vendors, but nevertheless can be ordered to disgorge all compensation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Sheppard Mullin
Ms. Matson may be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com

Attention Contractors: U.S. Department of Labor Issues Guidance on Avoiding Discrimination When Using AI in Hiring

November 25, 2024 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
I recently blogged about the use of AI and ChatGBT in the construction industry. Today’s guest post by Alexandra Shulman and Leah Lively addresses the recent guidance by the USDOL on the issue of using AI when hiring in recruitment, which is applicable to those constructions who use AI in the recruitment process. AI in hiring: About 80% of U.S. and almost all Fortune 500 companies use AI-powered hiring software. AI may be used to target online advertising for job opportunities and to match candidates to jobs on employment platforms (e.g., LinkedIn, Indeed). AI may also be used to reject or rank applicants using automated resume screening and chatbots based on knockout questions, keyword requirements, or specific qualifications or characteristics. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Buchalter
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

What Counts as Adequate Opportunity to Cure?

June 13, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
qimono @ PixabayHere at Musings, we like to discuss (likely more than readers would like) the fact that in Virginia, the contract is king and its terms will be looked at carefully by the courts. One of those provisions that will be looked at carefully is the so-called “cure period.” The “cure period” is the time that a subcontractor has to fix any non-compliant construction after receiving notice of any deviation from the contract documents that must be fixed. In United States ex rel Allan Myers VA, Inc. v. Ocean Construction Services, Inc. the federal court for the Eastern District of Virginia examined what it means to grant a proper opportunity to cure. The Ocean Construction Services case arises from a contractual dispute between Allan Myers VA Inc. and Ocean Construction Services Inc., or OCS, involving renovation work performed in sections of Arlington National Cemetery. Presently before the court is Myers’ motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrate that it was not provided with a three-day cure period, a contractual prerequisite to OCS terminating the subcontract for default. 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

Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The city of Los Angeles is claiming that problems with the south runway at Los Angeles International Airport are due to construction defects. The city as filed a lawsuit against four of the firms involved in building the runway, CH2M Hill, R&L Brosamer, HNTB, and Tutor-Saliba Corp. The lawsuit also includes the possibility of naming up to 200 individuals or corporations. The suit alleges that the firms incorrectly installed the concrete, leading to accelerated wear. As a result, renovation of the runway will likely have to be done earlier than anticipated. The runway was opened in 2007 as part of a safety improvement effort. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Spotting Problem Projects

October 26, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Perhaps more than any other specialty contractor, electrical contractors bear the brunt of the “problem project.” Long after most other trades have completed their work and scattered in the wind, electrical contractors remain on site until the owner’s last inspection. And when the project is a “problem project,” the owner or prime contractor tend to liberally share their losses and liquidated damages among those specialty contractors remaining on site at the end. So what is an electrical contractor to do when the project starts coming off the rails? What is a Problem Project? First, it helps to identify the attributes of a problem project. While there are many negative qualities of a bad job, a problem project is one that busts budgets – whether labor, material, or time. Most commonly, the problem project will significantly exceed the labor budget. Because an electrical contractor’s most important (and understandably expensive) resource is its people, the labor budget is critical to the success of a job. When a project suffers delays or is ineptly managed, the labor costs soar, turning a potentially profitable job into a disaster. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

October 14, 2019 — John Baker - White and Williams LLP
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that should serve as a warning not only to employers, but to their corporate officers. The case against Altor, Inc., a New Jersey-based construction company, began in 2012 when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) directed Altor and its sole director and officer to pay a $412,000 penalty (Payment Order) to OSHA for several violations, including the failure to comply with fall protection standards. The company refused to pay, arguing that it did not possess sufficient assets. The Secretary of Labor filed a Petition for Civil Contempt against Altor and its President, Vasilios Saites. The court acknowledged that the company and Mr. Saites could defend against a contempt finding by showing that he and the company were unable to comply with the Payment Order. Beyond merely stating that they could not pay, the court required that they must show that they made good faith efforts to comply with the Order. After considering all of the evidence, the court ultimately relied on Altor’s bank records, which reflected that the company ended each month during a two-year period after the violations with a positive bank balance. Thus, the court determined that Altor could have made “at least relatively modest” payments and emphasized that the company never attempted to negotiate a reduced sum or a payment plan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Baker, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com

Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law

September 24, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis, & Kristian Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court (No. G047661, filed 9/22/2014) (“Solus”) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §17200) is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Fed/OSHA”) because the Unfair Competition law, as approved by the United States Secretary of Labor, does not include any provision for civil enforcement of workplace safety standards by a state prosecutor through a complaint for penalties. Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (“Solus”) is a plastics manufacturer. In 2007, Solus installed a residential water heater at its commercial facility in Orange County. The water heater exploded in March 2009, killing two workers. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) investigated and determined the explosion was caused by a failed safety valve and lack of any proper safety feature on the water heater. Cal/OSHA charged Solus with five violations of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Because deaths were involved, Cal/OSHA forwarded the results of its investigation to the Orange County District Attorney. In March 2012, the Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Solus’ plant manager and maintenance supervisor. The District Attorney also filed a civil action against Solus, including two causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 – the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The action sought civil penalties under the UCL in the amount of $2,500 per day, per employee, from November 29, 2007 through March 19, 2009. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis and Kristian Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Red Wings Owner, Needing Hockey-Arena Neighborhood, Builds One

August 06, 2014 — Chris Christoff – Bloomberg
Billionaire Mike Ilitch and his family plan to create an instantaneous neighborhood around Detroit’s new hockey arena and jump-start an economic recovery where other sports ventures fell short. The 250-acre (101-hectare) project near downtown sets the arena apart from other U.S. stadiums where little or no related development occurred, or arose long after construction. The Ilitches, owners of the National Hockey League’s Detroit Red Wings, will spend $200 million on apartments and retail space to attract residents by the time the arena opens for the 2017 season. They’ll also pay 44 percent of cost to build the arena. “This isn’t, ‘Build it and they will come.’ This is, ‘We’re coming and we’re building it,” said Mark Morante, a manager for the Michigan Strategic Fund, which must authorize a $450 million bond sale to build the arena, the largest by the state’s economic development arm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Christoff, Bloomberg
Mr. Christoff may be contacted at cchristoff@bloomberg.net

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES