Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Replacement of Gym Floor Due to Sloppy Paint Job is Not Resulting Loss

January 02, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment finding damage to the gym floor due to a poor paint job was not a resulting loss. Bob Robinson Commercial Flooring, Inc. v. RLI Ins,. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196105 (D. Ark. Nov. 1, 2023). Bob Robinson Commercial Flooring (BRCF) submitted a bid to the general contractor, Nabholz Construction Corporation, to install a vinyl athletic floor and striping at a middle school. The job also included the painting of a "Wildcat" logo the main gym floor. Therefore, BRCF's job was to install floors with proper painting and striping. Robert Liles and Robert Lines Parking Lot Services was the subcontractor hired to do the painting and striping. BRCF did not supervise or inspect Liles' work while it was ongoing. Nabholz informed BRCF that there were problems with the floor painting, including crooked lines, incorrect markings, misplacement of the three point lines for the basketball surface, drips, smudges, etc. The gym floor was eventually rejected due to the nature of the vinyl flooring, once primer and paint were applied, the paint could not be removed and repainted. BRCF had to hire a new subcontractor to remove the flooring, install new flooring and then paint new lines. The cost for removal and replacement was $134,188.95. 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

Court Retained Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 Despite Dismissal of Complaint

October 21, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Attorneys will commonly add a Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provision in their settlement agreements to ensure that courts have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement, as opposed to having to file a new complaint in the event of a breach of a settlement agreement. Oral settlements before a trial court are also enforceable under Section 664.6, but as discussed in Eagle Fire and Water Restoration, Inc. v. City of Danuba, Case No. F086052 (May 30, 2024), in cases involving a complaint and multiple cross-complaints, questions can arise as to whether a trial court has in fact retained jurisdiction under Section 664.6 to enforce an oral settlement and even what the terms of the settlement were. The Eagle Fire Case Eagle Fire and Water Restoration, Inc. was hired by the City of Dinuba to reroof the City’s police station and courthouse building. The contract was for approximately $500,000. Before completion of the project, a rainstorm caused significant water damage to the interior of the building. The City incurred over $330,000 in clean-up and repair costs and withheld approximately $319,000 from Eagle as an offset. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Gordon & Rees Ranked #4 of Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation by Construction Executive Magazine

July 11, 2022 — GRSM Construction Team - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been ranked as the No. 4 construction law firm in the nation by Construction Executive in the magazine’s 2022 ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™. As the only law firm with offices and attorneys in all 50 states, Gordon & Rees’ construction group (with over 150 construction lawyers) delivers maximum value to our clients by understanding their business and combining the resources of a full-service national firm with the local knowledge of a regional firm. Led by Allen Estes and Angela Richie, the construction lawyers at Gordon & Rees are uniquely situated to serve our construction clients. We have attorneys with professional training and practical experience in related fields such as engineering and construction management, as well as lawyers with leadership experience in various construction industry related trade associations, legal advisory committees and government agencies. “If a client is looking for a legal partner in multiple states who understands their business, Gordon & Rees is that partner,” said Angela Richie. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of GRSM Construction Team, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

Court of Appeals Finds Arbitration Provision Incorporated by Reference Unenforceable

September 20, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Subcontractors have gotten accustomed to incorporation clauses in their contracts. While an incorporation clause can incorporate any document, most typically, it’s the prime contract between the general contractor and the project owner. Subcontractors will sometimes even accept these documents sight unseen which can be a recipe for disaster. But not in the next case. In Remedial Construction Services, LP v. AECOM, Inc., Case No. B303797 (June 15, 2021), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor was bound to an arbitration provision contained in a prime contract that was incorporated by reference into the subcontractor’s contract. In this case, it was the prime contractor who was in for a surprise. The Remedial Construction Case In 2015, Shell Oil Products US, LLC entered into a prime contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for the demolition, remediation and restoration of the Gaviota oil terminal in Goleta, California. AECOM in turn entered into a subcontract with Remedial Construction Services, LP to perform portions of the work. When AECOM refused to pay Remedial for delay costs asserted by Remedial, Remedial filed suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Ex-Pemex CEO Denies Allegations of Involvement in Brazil Scandal

April 13, 2017 — Carlos M Rodriguez & Juan Pablo Spinetto - Bloomberg
ormer Petroleos Mexicanos Chief Executive Officer Emilio Lozoya denied participating in an alleged bribery scheme involving Brazilian construction company Odebrecht SA in Mexico, after Veja magazine reported the executive was mentioned in connection with an ongoing corruption probe. "I haven’t requested nor have I received illegal money," Lozoya said in an emailed response to questions by Bloomberg News on Wednesday. "I reiterate my interest in having this matter investigated and penalties issued, but without dishonoring and defaming without proof along the way." In a report this week, Brazilian magazine Veja cited court documents suggesting the former Pemex CEO allegedly requested a $5 million illegal payment to Odebrecht, Latin America’s biggest construction company, to obtain benefits in Mexico. Veja says it based its reporting on portions of a plea-bargain agreement between prosecutors and a former top executive at Odebrecht. The allegations are part of a three-year, sweeping corruption probe in Brazil known as Operation Carwash. Reprinted courtesy of Carlos M Rodriguez, Bloomberg and Juan Pablo Spinetto, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Using Lien and Bond Claims to Secure Project Payments

March 01, 2021 — Jonathan Cheatham - Construction Executive
While suing in court for payment on a construction project is nothing new, the very notion of non-payment tends evokes images of hard-working contractors and subcontractors, working with tight margins, owed payment for services rendered and materials. Fortunately, for general contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry, there are better remedies for securing payment on a project before it becomes a bigger issue. Construction projects, especially large public ones, usually include a dizzying array of general contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors, sometimes numbering more than a hundred entities. The inter-connected groups of companies working toward the goal of project completion require competent construction management in order to stay on time and on budget for completion. One of the project owner’s key tools used to ensure the process runs smoothly is the use of payment bonds and surety bonds. Payment Bonds Payment bonds ensure that contractors and subcontractors get paid for work performed in accordance with contract conditions. Disputes can occur before, during and even after the completion of work. Injunctive lawsuits, which contemplate the stoppage of work, would be detrimental to completing a public or private construction project of substantial size. Rather than having such minor disputes derail the entire project, the aggrieved party’s remedy is to file a claim against the payment bond, which offers a solution designed to keep the issue separate from the project’s completion. The payment bond also allows the project owner to transfer risk. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Cheatham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite

June 08, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed the impactful legislation to the Virginia construction industry in prior posts here at Construction Law Musings. One of those statutes that will take effect on July 1, 2020 will fundamentally change the relationships between general contractors and their subcontractors and suppliers. Senate Bill 838 does the following on construction projects with a value of $500,000 or greater that are not single family residential construction projects:

Makes the general contractor, and all tiers of subcontractors on a particular project contractually liable to pay their subcontractors’ (at any tier) employees wages.
Requires that the payments are equal or exceed those required by other statutes.
Deems contractors to be the employers of their subcontractors’ employees for purposes of Va. Code Section 40.1-29 that imposes criminal and civil penalties for failure to pay wages when due, and
Grants employees a private right of action for any violations, including the right to a class or joint action, award of liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and possible treble damages for “knowing” violations by the contractor.

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

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES