Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

June 06, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Musings, I have often (some might say too often) discussed the fact that in Virginia (as well as other places), your construction contract language will be strictly enforced. I have also discussed the need for attorney fees provisions as well as other language in order to mitigate your risk as a contractor. A recent case from the City of Roanoke Circuit Court discussed both of these principals and their intersection. In LAM Enterprises, LLC v. Roofing Solutions, Inc., the Roanoke Court looked at a contract between LAM and Roofing Solutions, Inc. that contained two provisions of the construction contract between the parties. The first provision limited the liability of Roofing Solutions to the contract price. The second provision is a relatively typical “prevailing party” attorney fees provision in which the winner of any lawsuit would be entitled to collect its attorney fees. For the specific language of these provisions, I commend the opinion linked above for your reading. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

November 17, 2016 — Richard H. Herold – Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Franchise & High Properties, LLC v. Happy’s Franchise, LLC, a 2015 decision issued by the Court of Appeals in Michigan, the franchisor, Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, signed a five-year lease for the commercial space to be occupied by its franchisee, Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc. The franchisor did so to secure a right of first refusal to purchase the property and to enforce the franchise agreement to have the lease assigned to the franchisor if the franchisee defaulted. The issue in the case was whether the term “tenant” referred solely to Happy’s Pizza #19 or whether it also included Happy’s Franchise as a co-tenant. “Tenant” was defined as follows: “Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc., 29102 Telegraph Road, Suite 607, Southfield, MI 48034, the lessee, and Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as `Franchisor’), hereinafter designated as the Tenant.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Real Estate Litigation Blog
Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com

John Boyden, Alison Kertis Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

July 25, 2022 — John Boyden & Alison Kertis - Lewis Brisbois
Reno, Nev. (June 16, 2022) – Reno Partner John Boyden and Associate Alison Kertis were recently named to Nevada Business Magazine's 2022 list of "Top Rank Attorneys." Formerly known as "Legal Elite," this annual list represents the top talent in the legal industry across the State of Nevada. According to Nevada Business Magazine, thousands of attorneys are nominated for the list and then scored based on the number and type of votes they receive, with votes from outside an attorney's firm receiving more weight. Finally, before being added to the list, the attorneys, and the votes they receive, go through several levels of verification and scrutiny, with each ballot individually reviewed for eligibility and every voting attorney verified with the State Bar of Nevada. The magazine has published this list for the past 15 years. Reprinted courtesy of John Boyden, Lewis Brisbois and Alison Kertis, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Boyden may be contacted at John.Boyden@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Kertis may be contacted at Alison.Kertis@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

October 21, 2024 — Kelly A. Johnson & Damian S. Barquin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
A recent decision by a federal court helps clear the path to coverage for property owners this hurricane season. The Court deemed one property policy’s flood exclusion inapplicable to bar coverage for water damage from backed-up drainage and overflow caused by excessive rainfall. The case, styled G.E.M.S. Partners LLC v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., — F.Supp. 3d —, No. CV 22-1664, 2024 WL 3568932 (D.N.J. July 29, 2024)), involved a familiar dispute between the insured and insurer following damage to covered property after a named storm’s heavy rainfall. Here, G.E.M.S. Partners LLC (“Insured”) obtained a commercial property policy from AmGUARD Insurance Company (“AmGUARD”) to cover three neighboring buildings in Union, New Jersey. In September 2021, intense rainfall from Hurricane Ida overwhelmed the local infrastructure and sewer system, leading to water leakage from plumbing fixtures at the insured property. To secure coverage under its AmGUARD policy, the Insured wisely relied on its “Water Back-Up and Sump Overflow Endorsement” (“Back-Up/Overflow Endorsement”). Under this endorsement, AmGUARD promised to “pay for ... damage ... caused by ... water ... which backs up through or overflows or is otherwise discharged from a sewer.”1 Indeed, a plumber that inspected the buildings following Hurricane Ida described the root cause of the water damage as a “back up” of “sewer ... water.”2 Reprinted courtesy of Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Damian S. Barquin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com Mr. Barquin may be contacted at DBarquin@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Business Interruption Claim Denied

September 12, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion to cap a potential business interruption claim after the insured failed to provide documentation was denied. Lake Charles Instruments Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116802 (W.D. La. July 2, 2022). Plaintiff operated a business that was damaged during Hurricane Laura on August 27, 2020, and subsequently by Hurricane Delta on October 9, 2020. Plaintiff had a commercial property policy issued by Scottsdale that provided business income coverage of up to $500,000. After Hurricane Laura, plaintiff submitted a claim. Plaintiff requested an advance. Scottsdale paid $50,000 on the business interruption (BI) claim while reserving rights to require full compliance with the policy, including submission of appropriate documentation. Scottsdale continued to request documentation, but none was received. Plaintiff also failed to provide documentation for its BI claim after Hurricane Delta. When documentation was finally provided, Scottsdale disputed that the documentation showed a BI claim that exceeded policy limits. Scottsdale determined the BI claim was below the policy limits. 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

Don’t Be Lazy with Your Tenders

October 24, 2022 — Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Our clients probably spend significant time, money and effort refining and updating their contract provisions covering indemnification and the duty to defend claims arising on their projects. But they should also consider spending an appropriate and adequate amount of time, money and effort when sending notices, or “tenders,” to enforce those critical provisions. Tenders demanding defense and indemnity are strictly interpreted based on what the contract documents require. Getting tenders wrong can result in losing one of the most significant risk-shifting tools in the contract. It can also be a monumental mistake if insurance coverage for indemnification damages and defense costs are lost because of an inadequate tender. The legal definition of “tender” is simple; it is “[a]n unconditional offer of money or performance to satisfy a debt or obligation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1479-80 (7th ed. 1999). Whereas “tender of defense” for insurance is “the act in which one party places its defense and all costs associated with said defense with another due to a contract or other agreement … [which] transfers the obligation of the defense and possible indemnification to the party to which the tender was made.” Int’l Risk Mgmt. Inst., Glossary. Thus, when claims arise on your projects, notice by tenders of defense and indemnity will often determine dispute resolution and available insurance proceeds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

January 11, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Welcome to 2021! As often happens here at Construction Law Musings, the year starts with a few posts on notable construction law cases that dropped in the past year or so. Not only does this review hopefully help you keep up, but helps me keep up with the latest developments (one of the reasons why I keep blogging). The first of these cases is Appalachian Power Co. v. Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. out of the Western District of Virginia federal court. In this case, Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. (“Wagman”) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) contracted for the design and construction of a highway interchange project (the “Project”). Wagman and the Appalachian Power Company (“APCO”) entered into a written contract (the “Written Contract”) for APCO to remove and relocate its utility structures (the “Work”) in order to facilitate construction for the Project. 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

Handshake Deals Gone Wrong

May 22, 2023 — Jessica Allain - ConsensusDocs
The construction industry has it fair share of “handshake deals”, oral agreements relying on the integrity of the people involved. But when it comes to protecting and enforcing legal rights, it is always a better idea to properly paper the deal and get it in writing. Otherwise, contractors relying on verbal promises may find themselves without any legal remedy should the deal go south. After all, it is not just a matter of trust, but also a way to document that everybody agrees on what the terms of the deal actually are. For example, a recent case out of New York highlights the dangers of unwritten promises. In Castle Restoration, LLC v. Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc., No. 16349-15 (N.Y. App. Div. 2/9/22), 2022 NY Slip Op 50082(U), 2022 WL 402882, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 485, Castle Inc. and Castle LLC entered into a deal for an asset sale to transfer equipment and a client list from Castle Inc. to Castle LLC. While that initial asset sale was properly papered with sale documents and a promissory note, the parties entered into a subsequent handshake/oral agreement where Castle LLC agreed to provide Castle Inc. with labor and materials on construction projects, and those goods and services would offset the payment obligation under the promissory note. But the problem was that the contract for the asset sale had a provision that the agreement could not be changed by oral agreement; rather, any changes had to be made in writing. Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Allain, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Allain may be contacted at jallain@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES