Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test

October 02, 2015 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
This past month, the California Court of Appeals for the Third District, in James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., Case No. C072169 (August 27, 2015), handed down a decision in a construction contract battle that has raged since 2007. And, once again, the winner is . . . in the words of Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch who authored the opinion . . . . “no prevailing party in [the] case” and hence “no prevailing party attorney’s fees [ ] awarded.” Background In Harris, subcontractor James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) sued general contractor West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) for extra work performed on a school construction project in Stockton, California. Among its claims, Harris asserted that West Bay was liable under California’s prompt payment statutes for failure to timely pay Harris. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

A UK Bridge That Is a Lesson on How to Build Infrastructure

November 15, 2017 — Cameron J. Bell - Engineering News-Record
This country’s infrastructure—bridges, airports, dams and levees—needs wide-scale repair and renewal. The United Kingdom’s new Queensferry Crossing bridge, connecting Edinburgh to Fife in Scotland, sets a new standard for how to do it. The result speaks for itself: The Queensferry Crossing, a three-tower, 1.7-mile-long cable-stayed bridge, debuted in early September well within budget and a manageable eight-month time delay—a rare occurrence among bridges. According to research at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School, nine out of 10 fixed links (bridges and tunnels) suffer an average cost overrun of 34% and a time delay of roughly two years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cameron J. Bell, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

General Contractor Supporting a Subcontractor’s Change Order Only for Owner to Reject the Change

December 09, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The opinion in Westchester Fire Ins. Co, LLC v. Kesoki Painting, LLC, 260 So.3d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) leads to a worthy discussion because it involves a common scope of work occurrence on construction projects involving a general contractor and subcontractor. The contractor submits a subcontractor’s change order request to the owner and the owner rejects the change order. What happens next is a scope of work payment dispute between the general contractor and subcontractor. Yep, a common occurrence. In this case, a general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform waterproofing and painting. A scope of work issue arose because the specifications did not address how the window gaskets should be cut and then sealed. The owner wanted the window gaskets cut at a 45-degree angle and the subcontractor claimed this resulted in increased extra work. The general contractor agreed and submitted a change order to the owner to cover these costs. The owner rejected the change order claiming it was part of the general contractor’s scope of work even though the cutting of window gaskets at a 45-degree angle was not detailed in the specifications. After the subcontractor filed a suit against the general contractor’s payment bond surety, the project architect further rejected the change order because gasket cutting was part of the specification requirements. (Duh! What else was the architect going to say? It was not going to concede there was an omission that resulted in a change order to the owner, right?) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine

September 26, 2022 — Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Texas jury has found that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus on the property of Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) caused “physical loss or damage” and resulting economic loss, triggering coverage under BCM’s commercial property insurance program. The jury awarded BCM over $48 million following a three-day trial; the award consisted of $42.8 million in business interruption, $3.3 million in extra expense, and $2.3 million in damage to research projects. The verdict came after the court denied the insurers’ pre-trial motion for summary judgment, rejecting the insurers’ contention that a virus cannot—as a matter of law—cause physical loss or damage to property. In denying the motion, the court held that whether the presence of the virus causes physical loss or damage presents a question of fact for the jury to resolve; a copy of the order rejecting the insurers’ summary judgment argument can be found here. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

January 22, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Issues of fact surrounding the applicability of various exclusions prevented the insurer from securing summary judgment on claims for water damage. Babai v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175336 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 13, 2013). The insured noticed water damage to various areas of her home during remodeling. Allstate denied the claim because the loss was "not sudden and accidental," but rather progressive. Allstate cited the policy provision for "wear and tear, aging, . . . deterioration," etc., to exclude coverage. Plaintiff filed suit and Allstate moved for summary judgment. First, Allstate argued that construction defects were excluded from coverage based upon the exclusion for "latent defects." "Latent defects" were those that would not be discovered by a reasonable person. There was no evidence that the water damage was readily discoverable, so Allstate's argument failed. 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

Blue Gold: Critical Water for Critical Energy Materials

October 24, 2022 — Robert A. James & Ashleigh Myers - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
As demand increases for low-carbon technologies to power the energy transition, the acquisition of critical materials—so-called given their integral role in the transition of energy activities—is becoming increasingly important. As described in our previous post, such critical materials include rare earth elements (REE), lithium, nickel and platinum group metals. In short, the transition endeavors to reduce use of one non-renewable resource—fossil fuel—by significantly ramping up our use of other non-renewable resources. While critical material discussions have largely centered on the availability and economic extractability of the minerals themselves, Pillsbury is also counseling on the other resources needed to bring the materials to market at the scales required for our decarbonization goals. Chief among these resources is water. The extraction, processing and manufacture of critical materials into low-carbon technologies all require significant volumes of water. For example, up to 5,000 gallons of water are needed to produce one ton of lithium. Critical materials are often found in arid climates that are already experiencing water stress (such as the “lithium triangle” of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, and copper in Chile), or in areas experiencing conflict and challenges to water development (such as cobalt production in the Democratic Republic of the Congo). In the U.S., development potential resides largely in the water-constrained western and southwestern states, such as Arizona (copper), California (REE), New Mexico (copper, REE), Texas (REE), Utah (magnesium, lithium, platinum, palladium, vanadium, copper), and Wyoming (REE, platinum, titanium, vanadium). Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

2019 Legislative Session

June 03, 2019 — Steve Heisdorffer – Colorado Construction Litigation
Two bills under consideration as the end of the session nears contain significant changes to Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”). The bills broaden remedies, make more conduct a breach of the CCPA, and include purely private transactions in the type of conduct that falls within the scope of the CCPA. The bills are House Bill 19-1289 (“House Bill”) and Senate Bill 19-237 (“Senate Bill”). As of April 29, 2019, the House Bill has passed the House. The Senate Bill has not progressed past introduction. It is unclear if both houses of the legislature will have an opportunity to vote on either or both bills before the session ends. The House Bill makes a person liable for CCPA violations based on conduct engaged in “recklessly,” not just knowing conduct. No definition of the term “recklessly” is provided in the House Bill, but Colorado’s attorney general testified “recklessly” “means a company or person acted with reckless disregard for the truth.” (Page 2). No explanation was given of what the word “reckless” in the definition of “recklessly” meant in this context. Another provision of the House Bill adds a “catch all” prohibition that labels as a deceptive trade practice knowingly or recklessly engaging in any unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, deliberately misleading, false or fraudulent act or practice. There is no indication how a person could “recklessly” engage in “deliberately misleading” acts or practices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at heisdorffer@hhmrlaw.com

COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds

March 30, 2020 — Ben Williams & MG Surety - Construction Executive
As COVID-19 continues to expand around the United States and the world, it may only be a matter of time before U.S. construction projects are affected by the virus. Performance bonds guarantee that a project will be completed by a contractor according to the contract. However, what if a contractor cannot complete a project on time due to widespread disease? What, if any, impact could the virus have on a contractor’s surety bond program? Risk Factors Several risks associated with the virus could trigger a performance bond claim. 1. Materials. The Chinese account for a large supply of construction materials, including steel, copper, cabinetry, etc. An inability to obtain these materials could significantly delay or stop a project all together. Even if a contractor is able to obtain them from other sources, it may be at a significantly higher cost than they put into the bid. 2. Labor. There is already a shortage of qualified labor in the construction industry. Additionally, construction already lends itself to the spreading of viruses; workers are often in close proximity, handling common materials, and they may not have an easily accessible place to wash their hands. Furthermore, even though many now have paid sick leave, there is often pressure not to use it. These things could magnify the labor shortage and make it difficult to complete projects on time. 3. Safety. Finally, the world is having a serious shortage of respirators. Because of widespread panic, many people have been purchasing N95 respirators—so much that the Surgeon General has asked people to stop buying them. It has created a shortage for people who really need them, like contractors. If contractors can’t get these safety masks, certain trades will either be unable to work, or risk continuing the project without masks, which would endanger workers and open them up to OSHA penalties. Reprinted courtesy of Ben Williams and MG Surety, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Williams may be contacted at benw@mgsuretybonds.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES