Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

September 18, 2023 — Tiffany Harrod - ConsensusDocs
With the on-going shortage of construction workers in the industry and other factors ranging from weather to procurement problems, the threat of project delay is real. When a contract contains a liquidated damages clause for assessing project delays, real financial consequences for contractors can result. Courts have long allowed parties to apportion contractual risks as they deem appropriate especially in the commercial context where the parties are considered to be sophisticated even if their bargaining power is not equal. Liquidated damage provisions such as those for delay that are found in construction contracts are not unusual but they must be crafted in such a way as to be enforceable and not violate public policy. A liquidated damage clause in a construction contract is a customary way for the parties to deal with the possibility of delay in the completion of a project and the potential losses flowing from the delay.[1] In their most basic form, the party in breach, which is more often than not the contractor, is obligated to pay the non-breaching party, usually the project owner, some fixed sum of money for the period that exceeds the designated completion date that was agreed upon in advance and memorialized in the contract. (It is after all no secret that these provisions are primarily for the owner’s benefit.) The non-breaching party is then compensated for losses associated with the delay without the time and expense of having to prove in either a civil suit or an arbitration proceeding what the actual damages are. This option is particularly attractive to project owners because the liquidated damages assessment can simply be withheld from payments owed to the contractor once the agreed-upon completion date has been passed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Harrod, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com

Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

May 13, 2019 — Edward M. Koch & Michael Jervis - White and Williams LLP
The United States Supreme Court recently approved and adopted amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 concerning class action practice as proposed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The amended rule went into effect on December 1, 2018. The amendments do not affect the core of the rule – the criteria for obtaining class certification. Instead, the changes are more subtle adjustments that update and modernize procedures and processes for notification to class members and obtaining approval of class settlements. Nonetheless, although the amendments are not breathtaking, there are important changes. The first set of amendments apply to Rule 23(e), governing the process of settlement of a class action. First, the amendment makes explicit that the subsection applies not just to already certified classes, but also “a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.” The changes also add some discretion of the court concerning when notice of a proposed settlement and settlement class should be provided. As part of the settlement approval process, the parties now are expressly required to give the court “information sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposal to the class.” The giving of notice is justified only if that information is sufficient to allow the court to determine it is likely to approve the proposed settlement and certify the class. Once notice is approved, the new rule recognizes modern developments by allowing that notice may be by “United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” The rule thus recognizes that in many cases traditional mail notice may still be best; in others e-mail notification might be the best way to reach class members. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

February 27, 2019 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario
In Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2/8/19 No. A150833), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by the plaintiff based on the erroneous conclusion of an attorney who she had consulted (but who had not yet appeared as counsel in her case) that the applicable statute of limitations had not yet expired. In reality, the limitations period had expired on the same date plaintiff had filed her complaint in propria persona. The plaintiff later retained the attorney on a limited basis to present the motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) based on the attorney’s affidavit of fault. Therein, the attorney testified that he had advised the plaintiff to dismiss her action voluntarily based on a misinterpretation of the applicable limitations period, which the attorney characterized as having been based on his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” Section 473 provides two distinct provisions for relief from default or dismissal – one is discretionary, while the other is mandatory. Discretionary relief is available in the case of an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In contrast, mandatory relief is available where the resulting dismissal was caused by an attorney’s mistake, whether or not excusable. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court reasoned that the plaintiff could not rely upon Section 473(b) because (1) the attorney did not represent the plaintiff at the time and (2) this provision did not apply to the voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Thanks for Four Years of Recognition from JD Supra’s Readers’ Choice Awards

May 20, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
A big thank you to the folks at JD Supra and its readers for recognizing us in its Construction category for its 2019 Readers’ Choice Awards! We’re honored to be among the 228 authors recognize for their visibility, engagement and thought leadership out of more than 50,000 who have published articles on JD Supra this past year. Congratulations as well to the other JD Supra 2019 Readers’ Choice Award recipients whose hard work encourages us to be better authors. 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

New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st

July 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai on his California Construction Law Blog reminded readers that the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the New Listing Law Requirements goes into effect on July 1st of this year. According to Murai, the new “California Building Energy Efficiency Standards include: (1) the 2013 California Energy Code, Part 6, (2) the 2013 California Administrative Code, Chapter 10, Part 1 and (3) the energy provisions of the 2013 CALGreen, Part II, Title, 25, of the California Code of Regulations.” Furthermore, Murai pointed out that “Assemby Bill 44, which amended the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, also known as the Listing Law, was signed into law,” which requires prime contractors "to disclose the contractors license numbers of subcontractors performing work in excess of 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid or, in the case of bids for the construction of streets, highways, or bridges, in excess of 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid or $10,000, whichever is greater.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property

January 27, 2020 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
For subrogation practitioners dealing with an installation-based statute of repose, knowing what is an improvement to real property is the first battle in what can, but does not have to be, a long fight. Like many other states, Tennessee’s statute of repose bars claims based on improvements to real property. Tennessee’s statute of repose runs four years after substantial completion of the improvement. See Tennessee Code Ann. § 28-3-202. In the case of Maddox v. Olshan Found. Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E A, 2019 Tenn.App. LEXIS 464, 2019 WL 4464816, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee examined whether or not the work done by the defendant, Olshan Foundation Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E.A. (Olshan) — which addressed bowing walls, cracks in the foundation and walls and water intrusion — qualified as improvements to real property for the purposes of the statute of repose. The court held that the work by Olshan essentially amounted to repairs, and did not qualify as improvements to real property. In Maddox, the plaintiff, Rachel Maddox (Maddox), noticed cracking in her home in 2005 and hired Olshan to assess the issue and conduct necessary repairs. Olshan made several recommendations and the parties agreed on Olshan’s proposal for the price of $27,000. From their initial work in 2005 until late 2011, Olshan visited the property several times to address ongoing structural issues with the home. Eventually, eight months after Olshan told Maddox they could not fix the house and failed to return her phone calls, Maddox filed suit, alleging fraud against the company. After a three-day bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff for $187,000, plus $15,0000 in punitive damages. Among other holdings, the court rejected Olshan’s statute of repose defense. Olshan appealed, raising the statute of repose issue again. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

N.J. Appellate Court Confirms that AIA Construction Contract Bars Insurer's Subrogation Claim

September 10, 2019 — Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On April 4, 2019, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court confirmed that the waiver of subrogation provision in a commonly used form construction contract, American Institute of Architects (AIA) form A201 — 2007 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, precluded an insurer’s claims against a subcontractor. In Ace American Ins. Co. v. American Medical Plumbing, Inc., the court considered Ace American Insurance Company’s (Ace) subrogation claim against a plumbing subcontractor who was allegedly responsible for a water main leak that caused approximately $1.2 million in damages to Ace’s insured, Equinox Development Corporation (Equinox). In March 2012, Equinox entered into a contract with Grace Construction Management Company, LLC (Grace) to build the “core and shell” of a new health club. Equinox and Grace used AIA form A201 for their contract. Grace then hired American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (American) as a plumbing subcontractor for the project. In April 2013, the water main failed, flooding the health club. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. may be contacted at coverage@sdvlaw.com

In Review: SCOTUS Environmental and Administrative Decisions in the 2020 Term

August 10, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Several decisions of interest were issued in the 2020 term, which stretched from October 2020 until early July 2021. This review will concentrate on environmental and administrative law cases. Texas v. New Mexico On December 14, 2020, the Court issued its ruling in an Original Action. Water is precious in the Pecos River Valley, and the distribution of water is governed by the Pecos River Compact. Here, Texas complained that New Mexico illegally was seeking delivery credits for evaporated water credits but the Court agreed that New Mexico was entitled to these credits under the provisions of the River Master’s Manual. Florida v. Georgia On April 1, 2021, in another waters right ruling on an Original Action filed in the Supreme Court, the Court rejected Florida’s claims that Georgia’s use of interstate waters harmed Florida’s businesses. Florida had to satisfy a heavy burden of proof, which it failed to do. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES