Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.

November 21, 2022 — Christian Fernandez - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Liquidated damages provisions in commercial and residential real estate contracts play a vital role when a transaction goes south, and should be given careful consideration when negotiating a real estate contract. Liquidated damages may be referred to in a variety of ways, such as “earnest money,” a “good-faith deposit,” or a “non-refundable deposit,” but each typically denote a negotiated amount of money that a seller is entitled to retain should a buyer breach a purchase and sale agreement. The purpose of liquidated damages is to provide the parties with certainty when actual damages arising from a breach of contract may be difficult to calculate. Accordingly, liquidated damages provisions alleviate the need for potentially expensive litigation associated with proving damages. While parties are free to negotiate the amount of liquidated damages, the amount must approximate the loss anticipated at the time of contracting, or the loss that actually occurs as a result of a breach. Arizona courts have held that where the amount of liquidated damages is unreasonably large when compared to the anticipated loss or actual loss, the liquidated damages provision is unenforceable as a penalty. A breaching party faced with high liquidated damages will often seek to invalidate the provision as a penalty. If a court agrees, the non-breaching party may still recover damages, but must go through the process of proving such damages. Therefore, when negotiating a real estate contract, consideration should be given as to whether a liquidated damages amount is arbitrarily high when compared to an anticipated loss in the event of a breach. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christian Fernandez, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Fernandez may be contacted at cfernandez@swlaw.com

Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

July 27, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As an almost universal rule here in Virginia, failing to show up for court or respond to a lawsuit is a bad idea. Consequences include default judgment against you without the right to defend or make your case. Courts simply enter judgment and the consequences of that judgment will follow. However, and as is often the case around here, there are small exceptions where the courts of Virginia allow the defaulting party off the hook. Sullivan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. KBE Building Corporation is just such a case. In Sullivan Mechanical, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Virginia was faced with a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment from KBE. The facts are laid out in the opinion, but basically come down to the usual subcontractor not paid by the general contractor and general contractor has reasons for non-payment. Subcontractor, Sullivan Mechanical, sued KBE and KBE failed to respond in a timely manner. One day after the deadline for response had passed, Sullivan moved for entry of default and the clerk entered the default that same day. KBE moved to vacate the default a mere 6 days after entry of 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

Work to Solve the Mental Health Crisis in Construction

September 05, 2022 — Bruce Morton & Diane Andrea - Construction Executive
The suicide rate for construction is one of the highest among major industries. That statistic is from a 2018 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And it’s one major reason why the concern about mental health in the construction industry has grown. Research shows that as many as 90% of all people who die by suicide have a mental health condition. Depression is the most common cause, but other conditions such as substance use disorders may have an impact as well. What is causing mental health conditions in the construction industry? According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 97% of the U.S. construction industry is male—and men experience the highest rate of suicides. Yet, while the suicide rate for women in construction is lower than that for men in the construction industry, it appears to be much higher than the suicide rate for the general female population. Being “tough” and “strong” are highly valued; acknowledging mental health concerns—or even seeking help—may be considered a sign of weakness. There is often fear of shame and judgment for admitting you have a problem. In addition, the nature of construction industry jobs may affect mental health. Injuries may cause chronic pain, which can result in substance disorders like opioid use. Seasonal work can result in layoffs, which puts a strain on family relationships and finances. The job is high-stress and the work is deadline-driven. Employees work long hours, potentially resulting in fatigue. Sometimes work is away from home for extended periods. The pandemic has exacerbated every other problem while creating its own. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Morton and Diane Andrea, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Morton may be contacted at bruce.morton@marshmma.com Ms. Andrea may be contacted at Diane.Andrea@MarshMMA.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

If You Can’t Dazzle Em’ With Brilliance, Baffle Em’ With BS: Apprentices on Public Works Projects

October 24, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The “Big Four” when it comes to public works contracting on state and local projects in California are:

Registration with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”);
Payment of prevailing of wages and maintenance and submission of certified payroll;
Compliance with the “skilled and trained workforce” requirements on certain projects; and
Hiring apprentices on state and local public works projects with a value of $30,000 or more.

The next case, GRFCO, Inc. v. Superior Court, 89 Cal.App.5th 1295 (2023), discusses the last of these requirements. The case also reminded me of W.C. Field’s old saying – “If you can’t dazzle em’ with brilliance, baffle em’ with bullshit” – and which ended with expected results. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

October 14, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined there were sufficient allegations in the underlying complaint and third party complaints to raise a duty to defend for the additional insured. Ill. Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Waukegan Steel Sales, 2013 Ill. App. LEXIS 624 (Ill. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2013). Waukegan was named as an additional insured under subcontractor I-MAXX Metalworks, Inc.'s policy with Emcasco. An employee of I-MAXX, John Walls, was injured on the job site and sued Waukegan. The complaint alleged Waukegan was negligent in failing to property manage, operate and maintain the premises. I-MAXX had a policy with Emcasco which named Waukegan as an additional insured. The coverage was limited, however, to the additional insured's vicarious liability as a result of the insured's conduct. Emcasco refused to defend Waukegan because the allegations of direct negligence against Waukegan were excluded by the vicariously liability provision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

November 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. 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

SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

August 30, 2013 — James Ganion - Ulich & Terry, LLP
The following communication republished courtesy of James Ganion, Ulich & Terry, LLP Dear Builders, Colleagues, and Interested Parties: I attach for your review a copy of this week’s opinion of the California Court of Appeal in our case of Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield. This opinion represents a significant change to the right of California builders to repair homes under SB800, California’s Right to Repair Act. In a nutshell, the Court determined that SB800 was not intended to replace prior applicable law, but merely be supplemental to prior law. Thus, a homeowner, or in this case the homeowner’s insurer, can pick and choose among SB800 and prior law, or even allege both in the alternative. In so deciding, the Court of Appeal reversed the holding of the trial court which had held, as so many trial courts have since 2003, that SB800 was intended to be the new exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. While we of course take issue with most of what the Court of Appeal has to say, the real life net effect is that SB800 is now optional to the homeowner, meaning the “right” to repair now lies in the hands of the homeowner who can elect to simply bypass that law and proceed with the filing of a lawsuit under prior law. Hardly what any of us believe the legislature intended. ULICH & TERRY LLP as counsel for Brookfield in this case will be filing a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal by September 6, 2013. Anyone interested in supporting the petition may file a letter with the Court of Appeal, preferably by September 13, 2013. Thereafter, assuming the Court of Appeal does not grant rehearing, we will be filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. Our firm, as appellate counsel, has established a website libertymutualvbrookfieldcrystalcove.com and through it will be providing information regarding the case, including copies of pleadings, orders, deadlines, and information on how to provide support for this case, which is of interest to the home building industry. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Ganion
James Ganion can be contacted at jganion@ut-law.com

California Subcontractor Gets a Kick in the Rear (or Perhaps the Front) for Prematurely Recorded Mechanics Lien

October 21, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California provides three statutorily recognized construction payment remedies: (1) mechanics liens; (2) stop payment notices; and (3) payment bond claims. Each is intended to provide payment protections for those who furnish labor, materials and services on a construction project. However, each is also different in important ways. One of those differences has to do with timing. Specifically, when the statutory payment remedy may be used by a claimant. Stop payment notices can be served at any time during a project even before a claimant has completed its work. However, mechanics liens may only be recorded and payment bond claims may only be made after a claimant has completed or ceased performing its work. In Precision Framing Systems, Inc. v. Luzuriaga, Case No. E069158 (August 29, 2019), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor had prematurely recorded a mechanics lien and, thereby, was prevented from filing a lawsuit to foreclose on its mechanics lien. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES