SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Toll Plans to Boost New York Sales With Pricing, Incentives

December 10, 2015 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
Toll Brothers Inc. plans to use competitive pricing and offer buyers incentives to speed up sales at some of its New York City condominium projects. “There are certain units in certain locations within a building that are hot, and then there are other units that may be in a dark, cold corner that you have to incentivize a bit more,” Chief Executive Officer Douglas Yearley said on the company’s earnings conference call Tuesday. While Toll “will not fire-sale it to move” units, “we will price to the market.” Incentives would be offered for certain units at Pierhouse at Brooklyn Bridge Park and 400 Park Ave. South and 1110 Park Ave. in Manhattan, Yearley said. While the supply in New York City has grown most for condos selling for more than $7.5 million, most of Toll’s units are less expensive, he said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

---

How Will Artificial Intelligence Impact Construction Litigation?

September 12, 2023 — Patrick McKnight - The Dispute Resolver
In the first half of 2023, artificial intelligence (“AI”) caught the public’s imagination. Attorneys have not been immune from the fever-pitch of commentary regarding the possible applications. While early adopters have had varying degrees of success, commentators have proposed various potential impacts on construction projects and disputes. This article discusses potential areas where AI can assist in preventing and resolving disputes from the pre-bid stage through project completion and close-out. What is AI? Artificial intelligence entered the popular zeitgeist accompanied by both optimistic and pessimistic predictions about the future. Internet searches on AI exploded in December 2022, reflecting a rapid and widespread public interest in the topic. The term “AI” itself is often loosely used to refer to a machine or computer software with the ability to conduct machine learning.[1] Whereas “automation” is the simple process of computing inputs, artificial intelligence refers to the ability to learn without additional programming from a human being. Now, increased computing power is finally helping some of the potential applications of this technology come into focus. Nonetheless, artificial intelligence is still maturing and is subject to “hallucinations” where the technology essentially generates erroneous nonsense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

---

Funding the Self-Insured Retention (SIR)

August 17, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Unlike a deductible, a self-insured retention (referred to an “SIR”) is, as the name suggests, a self-insured obligation of the insured before its insurer picks up coverage. The SIR needs to be exhausted by the insured (as the primary self-insurance component) before the carrier’s excess defense and indemnification obligations kick-in under the terms of the policy. However, an insured can generally exhaust an SIR by paying legal fees and costs associated with a claim. Oftentimes, the language in the policy requires the SIR to be paid for by the named insured or an insured under the policy. This was an issue addressed by the Florida Supreme Court in Intervest Const. of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Ins. Co., 133 So.3d 494 (Fla. 2014). In this matter, a personal injury claimant asserted a claim against the contractor dealing with a residential home. The contractor hired a subcontractor to install attic stairs and the subcontract required the contractor to indemnify it. The owner of the house injured herself on the attic stairs and sued the contractor. The contractor, in turn, sought indemnification against the subcontractor that installed the attic stairs. 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

---

Formal Request for Time Extension Not Always Required to Support Constructive Acceleration

April 25, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Does a constructive acceleration claim require the contractor to always request an extension of time which is then denied by the owner? While this is certainly the preference and the contractor should be requesting an extension of time as a matter of course for an excusable delay, the answer is NO! in certain circumstances. This is conveyed in the factually detailed case discussed below where a formal request for an extension of time was not required for the contractor to support its constructive acceleration claim. But first, what is constructive acceleration: Constructive acceleration “occurs when the government demands compliance with an original contract deadline, despite excusable delay by the contractor.” The Federal Circuit in Fraser defined the elements of constructive acceleration as follows: (1) that the contractor encountered a delay that is excusable under the contract; (2) that the contractor made a timely and sufficient request for an extension of the contract schedule; (3) that the government denied the contractor’s request for an extension or failed to act on it within a reasonable time; (4) that the government insisted on completion of the contract within a period shorter than the period to which the contractor would be entitled by taking into account the period of excusable delay, after which the contractor notified the government that it regarded the alleged order to accelerate as a constructive change in the contract; and (5) that the contractor was required to expend extra resources to compensate for the lost time and remain on schedule. Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, *42 (Fed.Cl. 2022) quoting Fraser Constr. Co. v. U.S., 384 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). 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

---

Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

July 13, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown. An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:

In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.

U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).

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

---

EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule

July 19, 2021 — Karen Bennett - Lewis Brisbois
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will revise a 2020 final rule clarifying requirements for water quality certification under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 85 Fed. Reg. 42210 (June 2, 2021). CWA Section 401 requires states and tribes to certify that any discharges associated with a federal permit will comply with applicable state or tribal water quality requirements. In an effort to eliminate 401 certification being used as a tool for delaying or imposing conditions unrelated to protecting water quality on federal permits, the 2020 rule established limits on the scope and timeline for review and required any conditions on certification to be water-quality related. State and Tribal governments and environmental groups challenged the rule, arguing it constrained state and tribal decision-making authority by limiting the term “other appropriate requirements of State law” in CWA Section 401(d) to “water quality requirements” and “point source discharges.” With EPA’s decision to revise the rule, many believe these same scope and timing limitations will be targets for change. Clients with experience, positive or negative, under the 2020 rule should consider submitting comments by the August 2, 2021 deadline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com

---

A Few Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On in 2023 (UPDATED)

February 20, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The annual General Assembly session is now well underway here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. As is always the case, those in our fine state legislature have introduced with varying success a few construction-related bills. This post will list just a few without comment, and a big one at the end that will likely spur a post or two down the road here at Construction Law Musings: HB1490: Virginia Public Procurement Act; certain construction contracts; performance and payment bonds. Allows localities to allow a contractor of indefinite-delivery or quantity contracts, defined in the bill, who is otherwise required to furnish performance and payment bonds in the sum of the contract amount to the public body with which he contracted to furnish such bonds only the dollar amount of the individual tasks identified in the underlying contract. Such contractors shall not be required to furnish the sum of the contract amount if the governing locality has adopted such an ordinance. UPDATE: Passed the House and is being considered in the Senate UPDATE 2: A substitute bill has passed both the House and the Senate. 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

---

Project-Specific Commercial General Liability Insurance

May 13, 2019 — Jeremiah M. Welch - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Many markets which provide insurance for construction projects include an endorsement providing coverage for “repair work” as part of their standard policy. “Repair work” endorsements are largely misunderstood by policyholders and the insurance broker community. They are typically assumed to be coverage enhancements, but many provide no additional coverage and actually risk reduction of coverage otherwise provided as part of the products-completed operations (“PCO”) extensions also found in these project-specific policies. This article is designed to help the reader understand these endorsements so that better decisions can be made at the point of purchase. Intent The common feature of these endorsements is a grant of coverage for bodily injury and property damage resulting from “repair work” for a specified period of time. Most endorsements define “repair work” to mean the repair of completed work performed pursuant to a contract or warranty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Welch may be contacted at jmw@sdvlaw.com

---