Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Bank of America’s Countrywide Ordered to Pay $1.3 Billion

July 30, 2014 — Patricia Hurtado – Bloomberg
Bank of America Corp.’s Countrywide unit was ordered to pay $1.3 billion in penalties for defective mortgage loans it sold to Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, a little more than half of what the U.S. had requested. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan issued the civil penalty against the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank today in the first mortgage-fraud case brought by the federal government to go to trial. Countrywide and Rebecca Mairone, a former executive with the mortgage lender, were found liable in October for selling thousands of bad loans to the two government-sponsored enterprises. Mairone was ordered today to pay $1 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg
Ms. Hurtado may be contacted at pathurtado@bloomberg.net

Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

May 31, 2021 — Paulo Flores, Timothy D. Matheny & Jackson Mabry - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The Texas Legislature has just sent Senate Bill 219 (“S.B. 219”) to the Governor for signature; if this legislation is signed by the Governor, it will further erode the Texas legal doctrine that makes the contractor the warrantor of owner-furnished plans and specifications unless the prime contract specifically places this burden on the owner. Background 49 states follow what is known as the Spearin doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Spearin) in which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-furnished plans and specifications. Texas, on the other hand, follows the Texas Supreme Court created Lonergan doctrine, which has been an unfortunate presence in Texas construction law since 1907. In its “purest form,” as stated by the Texas Supreme Court, the Lonergan doctrine prevents a contractor from successfully asserting a claim for “breach of contract based on defective plans and specifications” unless the contract contains language that “shows an intent to shift the burden of risk to the owner.” Essentially, this then translates into the contractor warranting the sufficiency and accuracy of owner-furnished plans and specifications, unless the contract between them expressly places this burden on the owner. Over the years some Texas courts of appeal had ameliorated this harsh doctrine, but in 2012, the Texas Supreme Court indicated Lonergan was still the law in Texas, in the case of El Paso v. Mastec. In 2019, the Texas Legislature took the first step toward hopefully abrogating the Lonergan doctrine by implementing a new Chapter 473 to the Texas Transportation Code with respect to certain projects undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation, and Texas political subdivisions acting under the authority of Chapters 284, 366, 370 or 431 of the Transportation Code, adopting, as it were, the Spearin Doctrine in these limited, transportation projects. Now, the legislature has further chipped away at the Lonergan doctrine with the passage of S.B. 219. Reprinted courtesy of Paulo Flores, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Jackson Mabry, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Flores may be contacted at PFlores@Pecklaw.com Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com Mr. Mabry may be contacted at jmabry@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Partner John Toohey and Senior Associate Sammy Daboussi Obtain a Complete Defense Verdict for Their Contractor Client!

December 11, 2023 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Newport Beach attorneys John Toohey and Sammy Daboussi obtained a complete defense verdict after years-long litigation in favor of their concrete contractor client. This lawsuit arises from a claim made by Plaintiff for construction defects in a high-end single-family home. Our client was hired to perform concrete work on the foundations of the home. It was alleged that the home’s foundation was incorrectly built. It was further alleged that the construction defects/errors led to delays and substantial expenses. We argued that our client relied on the certifications provided to them by design professionals and the City. We further argued that our client, like any reasonable concrete/foundation subcontractor, has no responsibility or obligation, contractual or otherwise, to review and recheck the work completed by a licensed professional. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

February 18, 2019 — Sarah E. Carson - Smith Currie
The saying “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry” can too often apply in the construction industry. A contractor may receive a description of site conditions that is ultimately found flawed or misleading. The costs associated with addressing these surprise conditions often fall on the contractor to pay. The following article details proactive steps to avoid costly obstacles that may cause a project’s success to go awry. What are Differing Site Conditions? There are generally two recognized types of differing site conditions. The first, often referred to as a “Type I Changed Condition,” exists when a specification in the conditions indicated in the contract documents varies from what is represented. The second category, generally referred to as a “Type II Changed Condition,” is a variance so unusual in its nature that it materially differs from conditions ordinarily encountered in performing the type of work called for in the geographic area where the project is located. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah E. Carson, Smith Currie
Ms. Carson may be contacted at secarson@smithcurrie.com

Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums

January 18, 2021 — William E. Underwood Partner, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Withholding sums during a dispute can be an effective and perfectly legitimate means to protect against the harms caused by another party’s breach. However, withholding too much money during a dispute can turn a position of strength into one of weakness. “Why should I fund the other side’s litigation war chest?” and “Isn’t this just a display of weakness?” are common questions raised by contractors when this issue is discussed. Often, the contractor is well within its contractual or legal rights to withhold money from a breaching subcontractor (another topic for another day). But it may not always be in a contractor’s best interest to withhold every single penny available. This article addresses some of the long-term implications for failing to return withheld sums, including the potential to recover attorneys’ fees, possible bad faith, accruing interest, and overall litigation costs. Admittedly, it can be hard to give money back in the middle of a dispute. But sometimes it can positively impact the overall outcome of the case. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

Arizona – New Discovery Rules

May 16, 2018 — John Belanger - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Effective July 1, 2018 New Rules of Civil Procedure are taking effect in Arizona on July 1, 2018. The new Rules will change how discovery works in civil litigation in the state. Here is a sneak peek at the changes that will impact your file handling the most: Tiered Discovery

How much discovery is allowed in a case will now depend on the amount and type of relief sought
Cases will be assigned to one of three tiers
Parties can agree on a tier assignment, the court can assign a tier, or a tier can be assigned based on the amount of damages, or a combination of monetary and non-monetary damages

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Belanger, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Mr. Belanger may be contacted at jbelanger@bremerwhyte.com

Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The homeowners in the Lakeview development built by Maronda Homes in Orange County, Florida started having water and drainage problems shortly after the homeowners association took control of the community. They fought their case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, where the question was whether implied warranties of fitness covered the community’s infrastructure. William Martin III, writing on the DestinLog, notes that previous Florida Supreme Court decisions went the other way. In a case involving a seawall, the court held that “unless the seawall was part of or in connection with the construction of a home or in support of a residence.” In the Lakeview case, they determined that the community’s infrastructure was just that: “essential to the habitability of the residence.” The court specifically included roads for ingress and egress, drainage systems to divert flooding, retention ponds to correct water flow damage, and underground pipes which are necessary for living accommodations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider

June 20, 2022 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
In the world of the building and construction industry, the general rules of contracting are fairly simple. A supplier agrees to supply equipment or materials for a specific price and within a certain time frame, does so, and is paid an agreed sum. Likewise, contractors and subcontractors agree to build structures per plans and specifications within certain time frames and are paid accordingly. Pretty simple. But what happens when some outside event makes performance impossible or unduly expensive or substantially delayed? What happens, for example, if a ship is sitting off the coast of Long Beach for three months with equipment ordered for the project and it cannot be unloaded due to a labor shortage? What if government mandates cause factories that build needed equipment to close due to an epidemic or pandemic? What if the supply warehouse holding the equipment until it is ready for installation unexpectedly burns to the ground? What if a Russian missile blows up the factory in Ukraine where the intended equipment is being manufactured? What happens then? Who bears the financial consequence? A properly constructed “force majeure” clause may provide the answer to these questions. The Marriam-Webster Dictionary defines “force majeure” as a literal translation from the French meaning “a superior or irresistible force.” It further defines the term as “an event or effect that cannot be reasonably anticipated or controlled.” The Oxford Dictionary defines force majeure as “unexpected circumstances, such as a war, that can be used as an excuse when they prevent somebody from doing something that is written in a contract.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES