Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Top 10 Take-Aways: the ABA Forum's 2024 Mid-Winter Meeting

February 26, 2024 — Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute Resolver
The Forum on Construction Law convened last week at Caesars Palace in sunny Las Vegas for its 2024 Mid-Winter Meeting. Carrie Okizaki and David Suchar (along with John Cook, Karen Erger, and countless others) put together a truly outstanding program on power projects. Here are my top 10 take-aways from this unique and insightful event: 10. The demand for power projects is steadily increasing. The increasing demand for power construction projects is being driven chiefly by the need to replace aging infrastructure as well as the desire to develop cleaner and more sustainable generation facilities. The constant demand for more and more electricity is not that surprising but, according to Jeff Richardson (Energy Solutions) and Eric S. Gould (Modus Strategic Solutions), the pipeline market size for power-generation projects in 2028 is expected to reach $10.6 trillion, i.e., double what it was just in 2022. 9. "Net Zero" is the new normal. In December 2021, President Biden issued an executive order proclaiming that, by 2050, the federal government will be a Net-Zero contributor to the climate crisis. To achieve this goal, the greenhouse gasses ("GHGs") released by government operations must be less than (or equal to) the GHGs absorbed/removed from the environment. Other government bodies and private companies alike are adopting similar Net-Zero goals. Because not all of these promises are created equal, Moody’s Investors Services has a tool to help consumers compare and evaluate companies' carbon transition plans. According to panelists, Amanda Schermer MacVey (Venable), Brendan Hennessey (Pillsbury), and Laszlo von Lazar (Black & Veatch), these Net-Zero commitments are likely to result in more rigorous supplier codes of conduct and heightened carbon tracing efforts on construction projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8

August 03, 2020 — Construction Executive
There is just over one week left to apply for the extended period of the Paycheck Protection Program, which will accept new applications through Aug. 8. Congress extended the legislation by unanimous consent on June 30 and President Trump signed the bill into law on July 4, 2020, allowing approximately $131.9 billion in funding to remain accessible to small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Associated Builders and Contractors has expressed support for several changes to the PPP, but submitted comments on July 27, 2020, to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and U.S. Small Business Administration regarding changes to an interim final rule altering loan forgiveness and loan review procedures. ABC urges the government agencies to:

Provide further guidance on when businesses should apply for loan forgiveness and when they are notified of their forgiveness status.
Issue further guidance on the PPP audit process.
Increase flexibility for employee retention requirements and loan forgiveness.
Provide further clarification of non-payroll costs.
Refocus efforts to deliver PPP funds to underserved communities and minority businesses.

Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

July 22, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Mechanic’s liens are a big topic here at Construction Law Musings. I’ve discussed everything from the picky nature of this powerful payment tool to the changes that are upcoming on July 1, 2019. Given the strict way that the form and timing of a Virginia mechanic’s lien is so critical, I thought a quick reminder was in order. Two numbers that are critical to the timing and content of any mechanic’s lien are 90 and 150, both found in Va. Code 43-4. 90 days is the time from the last date of work (not invoicing), or last date of the last month in which work was done given proper circumstances. The 90 days prescibes the time during which a contractor can properly record a valid lien. This is a hard deadline and is 90 days, not three months. Miss this deadline and no matter what the type of payment that has not been made (something discussed below), the contractor will lose its lien rights. This is the easier of the two numbers to both understand and apply. Count 90 days from last non-corrective or warranty work and that is your hard out for filing. 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

Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports

August 04, 2021 — Joshua A. Morehouse - ConsensusDocs
When bidding a project, subsurface or latent site conditions that are not immediately apparent can massively impact the costs of performance to general contractors. Were contractors required to bid on projects without any information on pre-existing conditions, they would need either to be assured that any additional costs would be reimbursed by the owner, or to include significant contingencies for subsurface conditions in their bids. For owners, these options result in either increased risk or increased cost—neither of which is particularly palatable. Owners therefore implement several contractual tools to minimize these risks and costs. One of these tools is providing bidders with a report on latent conditions, often called a “geotechnical data report” or “GDR”, but otherwise shifting as much of the subsurface-related risk as possible to the contractor. In theory, these reports permit contractors to appropriately adjust their contingencies for latent conditions, thus saving owners money. However, several independent and thorny issues arise where site reports provided by the owner are either inconsistent with or silent on the actual conditions of a project site. Hence owners often include disclaimers with these reports, such as noting that the report is for “informational purposes only” or that the report is “not part of the contract documents." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua A. Morehouse, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Morehouse may be contacted at jmorehouse@pecklaw.com

Construction Firm Sues Town over Claims of Building Code Violations

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Paradigm Development and Construction LLC has sued Bristol Township, Pennsylvania over the allegation that town building officials colluded with their clients to issue building code violations after Paradigm prepared to sue the clients. John and Patricia Conard hired Paradigm to construct an addition to their home. During the process, the work went through nine inspections before Paradigm stopped work over a payment dispute. Some months later, Bristol Township issued a notice that Paradigm had 37 violations of the building code. Paradigm alleges that the source was a set of photographs provided by the Conards to the building officials. The lawsuit states that Paradigm “was not notified of any construction deficiencies at the Conard property, and was not provided with an opportunity to discuss, defend or refute the allegations of the Municipal Defendants that Plaintiff has violated the Bristol Building code.” The violation notice was withdrawn a few months later. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Seller Faces Federal Charges for Lying on Real Estate Disclosure Forms

October 02, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Homeowners Glenn and Kathryn Jasen allegedly mislead buyers Kelly Magbee and family when they checked “no” on questions regarding sinkhole activity on real estate disclosure forms, according to On Your Side News. Furthermore, “Citizens Property Insurance Co. failed to file a sinkhole certification on a Spring Hill home in 2009. The company slipped the form into county records five years later- in Sept. 2014 – after questions from 8 On Your Side.” If the insurance company had filed the sinkhole documentation, then the Magbees would have been told about the sinkhole prior to the purchase of the home. According to On Your Side News, Magbee and family moved out of the home “after a crack opened in the living room.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

June 21, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court. The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well. Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote: “The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

July 25, 2022 — Celestine Montague & Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLP
On June 9, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held, on summary judgment, that an insured was not entitled to coverage under a Professional Errors and Omissions (E&O) policy for loss allegedly resulting from a hacking incident. See Construction Fin. Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 19-0020, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103042 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022). Applying North Carolina and Pennsylvania law, the court reasoned that: (1) coverage was barred by the policy’s unauthorized computer access, or “breach,” exclusions; and (2) the insured violated a condition in the policy that required the insurer’s consent to settlements and the violation prejudiced the insurer. The insured, Construction Financial Administration Services, Inc. (CFAS), was a third-party fund administrator for construction contractors. In April 2018, the CFAS received email requests from what it believed to be one of its clients, SWF Constructors (SWF), to disburse $1.3 million from an SWF account to a foreign company. CFAS authorized the payments, despite not having received a copy of any executed agreement between SWF and the foreign company. After the funds were disbursed, SWF advised that it had not authorized or requested the payments to the foreign company. In response, CFAS placed approximately $1.2 million of recovered and borrowed funds into the SWF disbursement account. SWF then sent a letter advising CFAS that the requests from the foreign company did not include documentation required under the contract between SWF and CFAS. It was later determined that the emails had been initiated by a fraudster who had gained unauthorized access to the sender’s email account. Reprinted courtesy of Celestine Montague, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Ms. Montague may be contacted at montaguec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES