Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Yet ANOTHER Reason not to Contract without a License

October 25, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Remember when I stated that you cannot lawfully perform construction work in Virginia without a contractor’s license? Remember when I said that you risk non-payment if you do so? If you needed another reason, a relatively recent Virginia Court of Appeals decision upholding a criminal conviction for performing construction work without a license should be that reason. In Riddel v. Commonwealth, the Court took up an appeal from the conviction of Jeff Riddel where Mr. Riddel was verbally asked by homeowners to inspect and then repair their septic system. Mr. Riddel then contracted with Fairfax Suburban Septic to pump out and repair the system. Mr. Riddel then delivered the homeowners an invoice from Fairfax Suburban Septic and instructed the homeowners to pay Fairfax Suburban Septic directly. After payment, the homeowners became aware that the work was not completed and that neither Mr. Riddel nor his subcontractor was licensed to perform septic work in Virginia. During the trial, Mr. Riddel argued on a Motion to Strike the Commonwealth’s evidence that (1) he merely arranged for licensed contractors to perform the repairs to the septic system, arguing that Virginia Code §§ 54.2-801 to 802 permitted Riddel to arrange the work without a contractor’s license and (2) no written contract to perform a septic inspection or repairs existed. The Circuit Court denied the motion and Mr. Riddel was convicted under Va. Code 54.1-111 for performing the work without a license. Needless to say, he appealed. 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

Quick Note: October 1, 2023 Changes to Florida’s Construction Statutes

November 13, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Effective October 1, 2023, there were changes to Florida’s statutory scheme dealing with construction projects. This includes Florida’s Lien Law. A copy of these changes can be found below which identify additions in blue and deletions with strikethroughs. No different than before, if you have questions or concerns as to your statutory rights on a construction project, do the prudent thing, consult a construction lawyer. A construction lawyer can help you understand changes to the applicable statutory scheme or how the statutory scheme pertains to your rights. This is important because you want to make sure you understand statutory changes that apply to your work and rights. A noteworthy change, bolded in blue below, is that there is now a basis to lien for a contractor performing construction management services “which include scheduling and coordinating construction and preconstruction phases for the construction project, or who provides program management services”:

Fla. Stat. s. 713.01 (8) “Contractor” means a person other than a materialman or laborer who enters into a contract with the owner of real property for improving it, or who takes over from a contractor as so defined the entire remaining work under such contract. The term “contractor” includes an architect, landscape architect, or engineer who improves real property pursuant to a design- build contract authorized by s. 489.103(16). The term also includes a licensed general contractor or building contractor, as those terms are defined in s. 489.105(3)(a) and (b), respectively, who provides construction management services, which include scheduling and coordinating preconstruction and construction phases for the construction project, or who provides program management services, which include schedule control, cost control, and coordinating the provision or procurement of planning, design, and construction for the construction project.

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

Prison Time and Restitution for Construction Fraud

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Federal prosecutors have obtained prison sentences and fines for the two leaders of a construction kickback scheme. Others are awaiting sentencing. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that John Paderta the former president of Krahl Construction has been sentenced to five years in prison and must pay $10 million in restitution. His executive vice president, Doug Harner will be spending five years in prison and has been ordered to pay $9.6 million in restitution. Paderta and Harner overbilled two clients on renovation projects, giving kickbacks to employees at the client companies. Two employees of these client companies have pled guilty. A further five employees of the three companies have admitted that they were involved in the fraud. They are yet to be sentenced. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

October 23, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s like that feeling you got when your teacher said you have another week to complete your group project. On September 21, 2018, Governor Brown signed AB 2913, which, for the first time, provides a uniform 12-month period across the state for work to commence before a building permit expires. Previously, the period was six months. In addition to doubling the expiration period, the statute includes a “justifiable cause” provision permitting local building departments to extend the time for one or more additional periods of not more than 180 days per extension upon written demonstration of “justifiable cause for the extension.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine

March 01, 2021 — Nicholas B. Brummel & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v. City of San Jose, the Sixth Appellate District held that the relation back doctrine was inapplicable where a plaintiff received constructive notice of a defendant’s identity months prior to the last date where filing was permitted pursuant to an applicable statute of limitations. In Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso, Mark Espinoza, an Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso (OCA/Plaintiff) representative, asked the City of San Jose (“the city”) to place him on the public notice list for a proposed rezoning project. He also twice specifically requested a copy of the notice of determination (NOD) documenting the city’s certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of the project. Despite Espinoza diligently requesting all notices for the project, the city, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), failed to send Espinoza the legally operative second NOD for the project; the first NOD was provided to OCA, but named an incorrect party in interest. Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The school district in the Chicago-area town of Lake Zurich has made last settlement in a construction defect lawsuit. The $80,000 settlement from Terra Group of Chicago brings the total settlement with the Community Unit School District 95 to about $1.9 million. Other firms included Bovis Lend Lease, Legat Architects, Larson Engineering, and Illinois Masonry Corporation. The school district had contracted for work on several schools in the district. The buildings opened in 2004, with defect claims made in 2007. Defect claims included the failure of a retaining wall and need for reinforcement of stairwells. The settlement with Terra Group was made under the agreement that it was a compromise with no concession of liability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

August 26, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In Greene v. Kenneth R. Will, a CGL insurer recently prevailed in a declaratory judgment action arising from an underlying class action alleging pollution and nuisance claims against the insured, VIM Recycling LLC, an Indiana-based waste-recycling facility.[1] “[T]his case has some whiskers on it,” the Indiana federal district court recounted in its exhaustive decision granting the insurer relief. The court relieved the insurer of indemnifying a $50 million default judgment against the insured, which, the court observed, “proved to be a bad neighbor” and “nuisance in both the legal and colloquial sense.” The court held that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the class action. “The judgment against the [insured] came about when a group of nearby homeowners decided that they had had enough of VIM’s polluting behavior and brought this class action to recover damages for environmental violations, nuisance and negligence based on the impact of the waste facility on their homes and property,” the court explained. Eventually, the court entered a default judgment against the insured for $50,568,750, plus an award of $273,339.85 in attorney’s fees. Because the insured was “judgment-proof,” the class action plaintiffs “aligned” with the insured “hoping to collect on their monumental judgment” from the insured’s CGL insurer. Within a few weeks’ time, the class action plaintiffs sued the insurer seeking a declaration of coverage for the default judgment against the insured. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

July 19, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The notice of commencement is important for purposes of construction lien priority. Stock Bldg. Supply of Florida, Inc. v. Soares Da Costa Const. Services, LLC, 76 So.3d 313, 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“[A] notice of commencement serves to determine the priority of liens under the Construction Lien Law.”). A lien relates back in time to the date the notice of commencement was recorded assuming the notice of commencement is still in effect when the lien is recorded (or an amended noticed of commencement is recorded). Lien priority is very important and the reason why a contractor should always want to ensure there is an effective notice of commencement in place rather than an expired notice of commencement. For the same reasons why a contractor wants to ensure there is an effective notice of commencement, there are times an owner wants to terminate a notice of commencement. An owner may want to terminate the potential priority of a construction lien. For instance, say the owner is refinancing or obtaining a construction loan in the midst of construction. A lender will want to ensure its mortgage maintains first priority and certainly priority over a potential construction lien. Otherwise, why would a lender finance the construction if it does not maintain first priority. It generally will not. Thus, an owner needs to terminate the notice of commencement so that the closing occurs on the loan and the mortgage recorded before a new notice of commencement is recorded and construction continues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES