SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

August 19, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Several months ago, I wrote about an escalator subcontractor that sued a general contractor, demanding payment for work completed based on approved shop drawings. The trial court agreed with the subcontractor, but the general contractor appealed. Ten months later, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the subcontractor had a duty to bring to the general contractor’s attention major discrepancies or errors they detect in the bid documents.

“The subcontractor failed to disclose ambiguities in the plans and must suffer the peril.”

Construction Difficulties The subcontractor installed 32 inch escalators throughout the project, but the plans called for 40 inch escalators. The general contractor and subcontractor could not reach agreement on how the dispute should be resolved. The subcontractor sued the general to get paid for replacing the escalators and the general sued to subcontractor for concessions it had to pay to the owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

November 02, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Tales of subcontractors who close up shop before paying their employees are not all that uncommon, but they are certainly not common enough to require General Contractors to pay for that same labor twice. Last month, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1701, which requires the General Contractor of a private construction project to pay all unpaid wages and fringe benefits owed to an employee of a subcontractor, irrespective of the tier, and even if the General Contractor made the payment. With the Governor’s recent signature, Assembly Bill No. 1701 is now the law of the land. Here is what you need to know:

• It applies to all private (but not public) construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018;
• It gives a subcontractor’s employee a direct cause of action against the General Contractor for any unpaid wages and fringe benefits, even if the General Contractor has fully paid the subcontractor;
• It gives a third party owed fringe or other benefits a cause of action against the General Contractor;
• All actions by the employee or third party must be filed within one year of the earliest of the recordation of the notice of completion, the recordation of the notice of cessation of work, or the actual completion of the work;
• The General Contractor cannot contract to avoid the liability imposed by Assembly Bill No. 1701, but it can seek indemnity from the subcontractor; and
• At the General Contractor’s request, the subcontractor shall provide the General Contractor with its payroll records.

Reprinted courtesy of Steven Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer Has No Obligation to Cover Arbitration Award in Construction Defect Case

May 22, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined there was no coverage for an adverse arbitration decision suffered by the insured in a construction defect case. Am. Fire and Cas. Co. v. Unforgettable Coatings, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64846 (D. Nev. April 13, 2023). Unforgettable contracted with Muirfield Village Homeowner's Association for painting and related services. Following completion of the project, Muirfield alleged that Unforgettable's work was defective and filed suit. The parties agreed to arbitration. The arbitrator found that Unforgettable breached the contract and its implied warranty. Damages were awarded to Muirfield. American Fire and Casualty Company (AFCC) was Unforgettable's insurer and defended Unforgettable at the arbitration. AFCC sued for a declaration that it had no obligation to indemnify Unforgettable for the damages awarded. Unforgettable and Murifiled counterclaimed, alleging that AFCC breached the policy by not covering the award, as well as a variety of extracontractual claims related to the investigation process. AFCC moved for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted with leave to amend. 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

---

Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

January 02, 2019 — Rob Phillpot - Construction Executive
Engineering and construction companies increasingly find themselves navigating an era of disruptive and transformative change driven by technology. And with the industry going strong and construction employment recently reaching a 10-year high, more companies recognize that it is time to embrace the efficiencies digital transformation brings, in large part to protect or enhance their competitive position. A report from the Global Industry Council notes that modern technology is moving to the strategic center of E&C business models as part of an evolutionary process. Reprinted courtesy of Rob Phillpot, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Right to Repair Act Means What it Says and Says What it Means

December 18, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
A rather short case for a short week. In Gerlach v. K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC, 82 Cal.App.5th 303 (2022), the 4th District Court of appeals examined provisions of the Right to Repair Act (Civ. Code §§895 et. seq), also known as “SB 800” after its original bill number, as it applies to roofs. The Gerlach Case Lynn Gerlach and Lola Seals are homeowners who purchased their homes in the Four Seasons at Beaumont adult community, for those 55 year old and older, located in Beaumont, California. Gerlach purchased her home when it was built in 2006. Seals purchased her home from the original owners in 2015. In 2015 and 2016, Gerlach and Seals served the developer, K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC, with claim notices under the Right to Repair Act. The Right to Repair Act, as its name implies, provides notice requirements and repair rights by developers of new single-family homes. The Right to Repair Act also includes construction standards, the violation of which, provides homeowners with a statutory basis for bringing construction defect claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

July 30, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Dispute Over Exhaustion of Primary Policy

May 20, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a dispute between the excess and primary carriers, the Fifth Circuit determined the primary policy was exhausted, triggering coverage under the excess policy. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arch Spec. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6627 (5th Cir. April 21, 2015). Amerisure issued a CGL policy to Admiral Glass & Mirror Co. The policy provided excess over any coverage under a controlled insurance program policy. Arch issued an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) policy to Endeavor Highrise, LP and to its contrators and subcontractors for bodily injury and property damage arising out of the construction of the Endeavor Highrise. Admiral was a subcontractor insured under the OCIP. The OCIP had combined bodily injury and property damage limits of $2,000,000 per occurrence, a general aggregate limit of $2,000,000 and a products-completed operations aggregate limit of $2,000,000. The OCIP contained a Supplementary Payments provision which provided that Arch would pay "[a]ll expenses we incur" in connection with any covered claim, and that "[t]hese payments will not reduce the limits of insurance." Endorsement 16, however, expressly deleted and replaced this statement with: "[supplementary payments] will reduce the limits of insurance." The OCIP also provided that Arch's duty to defend ended "when we have used up the applicable limit of insurance in the payment of judgments or settlements." 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

---

Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Replace Lawyers Anytime Soon

April 18, 2023 — Amir Kahana - Kahana Feld
In a recent article entitled, “A.I. Is Coming for Lawyers, Again” the New York Times explored the longstanding idea that the legal profession is most at risk of being disrupted by A.I. The article claimed that: “There are warnings that ChatGPT-style software, with its humanlike language fluency, could take over much of legal work.” And that: “Law is seen as the lucrative profession perhaps most at risk from the recent advance in A.I. because lawyers are essentially word merchants.” The problem with these predictions is that they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what lawyers do, which is primarily to provide sound advice and formulate sophisticated strategy. All the wordsmithing in the world won’t make a bad case good, or vice versa. Lawyers do not have a Jedi mind trick. We analyze the facts, we make the best arguments possible under the circumstances, we advise our clients on their prospects, and we come up with a strategy for an optimal outcome, which almost always includes a path towards settlement. We are strategists and trusted advisors. Not wordsmithers. This is not anything ChatGPT or current A.I. can do, or even come close to doing. And how do I know that? Because in a recent Wall Street Journal article, experts on self-driving cars explain that A.I. is nowhere close to being able to drive a car autonomously. In an article entitled “When Will Cars Be Fully Self-Driving?” the experts explain that the main impediment to fully autonomous vehicles is how dumb A.I. is. As one of the leading experts explains, fully autonomous cars “would require human-level artificial intelligence, and there is no commonly accepted theory on how to get there. As long as there is no human-level AI, autonomous mobility will be limited.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amir Kahana, Kahana Feld
Mr. Kahana may be contacted at akahana@kahanafeld.com

---