Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

May 07, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
You might remember the 2009 Pixar/Disney 3-D animated movie “Up,” about an aging widower, Carl Frederickson, who learns to let go of his past and live his dream of moving he and his beloved late wife’s “clubhouse” to a cliff overlooking Paradise Falls in Venezuela where the once young couple’s hero, Charles Muntz, a famous but now disgraced explorer, was said to have discovered the skeleton of a rare bird which skeptics alleged was fabricated. In the movie, the “clubhouse” is integral to the plot. In the opening scenes of the movie the audience learns that the clubhouse, which had been Mr. Frederickson’s deceased wife’s clubhouse that the couple later turned into their home, is sitting in the middle of a construction zone because old Mr. Frederickson has refused to sell his house to a developer who has proceeded to build around his house anyway. When a large loader knocks over his mailbox and a construction worker tries to fix it, Mr. Frederickson struggles with the worker not wanting him to touch any of his memories, and in the process inadvertently strikes the man with his cane. Later, in court, Mr. Frederickson learns that he has to leave the house and go to a retirement home. Apparently, justice is quick and decisive in their town. However, instead of going to a retirement home peaceably, codgy Mr. Frederickson rigs the clubhouse with thousands of balloons and proceeds to fly away, home and all. And, so the movie begins. Soon, however, what some have called the real life “Up house” will be sold. And the story behind the house is about as a interesting as its movie counterpart. And, because we lawyers are into disclosures, I will disclose that “counterpart” is more accurate than “adaption,” since the movie Up was in production before the events giving rise to the real life Up house took place. 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

Notice of Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Deadline

August 13, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California Private Works project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. The process starts with the recording of a mechanics lien in the office of the County Recorder where the property in question is located. As noted below, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that, the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). A further general description of the rules is as follows: 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

California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects

January 19, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
If you’re a public entity or contractor involved in public works construction you should be aware of a new law, AB 626, which took effect on the first of this year and establishes a new mandatory claims resolution process for disputes on public works projects. Here’s what you need to know: What is the new law and where is it codified at? AB 626 added new Public Contract Code Section 9204 that according to the bill’s author, Assemblymember David Chiu of San Francisco, establishes “a claim resolution process applicable to any claim by a contractor in connection with a public works project.” 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

More on the VCPA and Construction

February 01, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have posted before regarding the intersection between the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and construction contracting in regard to residential construction projects. A case out of the Eastern District of Virginia District Court further discusses this intersection as it relates to design contracts that also include the procurement and installation of certain design elements post-design. The basic facts of Marcus v Dennis are as follows: In October of 2018, Defendant Marlene Dennis, the owner of Marlene Dennis Design, LLC (“MDD”), operating out of Virginia, entered into a contract to provide design services and the procurement and installation of certain design elements for the Plaintiffs, Gregory and Jamie Marcus, at their Maryland home. The Marcuses agreed to $175 per hour to Dennis with a cap of a total of $100,000.00 for design consultation and furniture selection and procurement. The Marcuses also agreed that they would pay no more than $250,000.00 for furnishings, rugs, artwork, decorative lighting, and accessories. In November 2020, Dennis sent an invoice for $68,000.00 and informed the Plaintiffs that the total contract fees would be more than the $100,000.00 cap. After paying $124,722.41 in design fees, the Plaintiffs received an invoice for $255,5560.72 in January of 2021. Despite the cap of $250,000.00, the Plaintiffs wired $255,000.00 to Dennis while requesting the backup invoices for the material charges. After much effort and a threat of litigation, the Plaintiffs received documents from Dennis showing that Dennis inflated the costs of the materials prior to passing the costs along to the Marcuses. The Plaintiffs’ home was unfurnished and empty as of April 10, 2021, and the Marcuses had to hire and pay another design team over $85,000.00 to finish Dennis’ work. Needless to say, the Marcuses sued both Dennis and her firm for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and for violation of the VCPA. Dennis moved to dismiss the Complaint. 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

Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

November 21, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Originally published by CDJ on November 15, 2017 I read once that 97 percent of cases never go to trial. However, there are still the ones that do. And, then, there are the ones that do both. The following case, Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. E063551 (September 8, 2017), highlights some of the issues that can arise when portions of cases settle and other portions go to trial, the recovery of delay damages on a construction project through insurance, and the recovery of attorneys’ fees. Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs contracted with general contractor Kadena Pacific, Inc. (Kadena) to oversee construction of its Center for Blind Rehabilitation in Menlo Park, California. Kadena, in turn, contracted with subcontractor Global Modular, Inc. (Global) to construct, deliver and install 53 modular units totaling more than 37,000 square feet for a contract price of approximately $3.5 million. 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

Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

July 05, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner. The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity. 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

One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

June 28, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

According to the Supreme Court of Washington Blog, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jackowski v. Hawkins Poe on Thursday, June 16, 2011. The court’s synopsis of the case can be found on the Washington State Court website.

In short, two home purchasers brought a lawsuit against the home’s sellers, the sellers’ agent and the purchasers’ own agent, alleging claims of fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and breach of common law and statutory duties. The trial court dismissed the buyers’ claims on the basis of the economic loss doctrine and Division II reversed, opining that the ELR does not apply to professional duties. The Supreme Court will now look at applying the Independent Duty Doctrine established last year, and whether professional duties (those of the real estate agents) should be reviewed under a different light.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

December 16, 2019 — Patricia B. Santelle & Ciaran B. Way - White and Williams LLP
On October 4, 2019 (almost two years after granting certification), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s rulings on four key coverage issues in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. The coverage dispute in Vanderbilt concerns underlying actions alleging that talc and silica mined and sold by the insured contained asbestos and/or caused asbestos-related disease. The case has been proceeding in phases, two of which have been tried to date, resulting in the matter on appeal. (1) “Continuous Trigger” Theory of Coverage Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s opinion applying a “continuous trigger” for the underlying claims at issue, and agreed that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger. (2) The “Unavailability of Insurance” Exception to Time-on-Risk Pro Rata Allocation Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s ruling that (a) damages and defense costs should not be allocated to any period in which insurance was “unavailable” in the market, (b) the insurers bear the burden of proving that coverage for asbestos liabilities was available to the policyholder after the date asbestos exclusions were added to the policies and (c) the insured bears the burden of proving that it was unable to obtain asbestos coverage prior to 1986 (when such insurance was generally available). The Appellate Court recognized that, in certain circumstances, there could be an “equitable exception” to the unavailability rule if the insured continued to manufacture products containing asbestos after 1986 with the knowledge that such products were hazardous and uninsurable (circumstances which the court found were not present in this case). Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES