Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

July 01, 2019 — Vincent C. Zabielski & Julia Kalinina Belcher - Gravel2Gavel
Can an employer recover liquidated damages (LDs) from a contractor if the contract terminates before the contractor completes the work? Surprisingly, heretofore, English law provided no clear answer to this seemingly straightforward question, and inconsistent case law over the past century has left a trail of confusion. Given the widespread use of English law in international construction contracts, this uncertainty had gone on far too long. The good news is that drafters of construction contracts throughout the world can now have a well-deserved good night’s sleep courtesy of the English Court of Appeal’s March 2019 decision in Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 230. The Triple Point case concerned the delayed supply by Triple Point (the “Contractor”) of a new software system to employer PTT. The contract provided for payments upon achievement of milestones, however order forms incorporated into the contract set out the calendar dates on which fixed amounts were payable by PTT, resulting in an apparently contradictory requirements on when payment was due. Triple Point achieved completion (149 days late) of a portion of the work milestones, and were paid for that work. Triple Point then sought payment for the work which was not yet completed, relying on the calendar dates in the order forms rather than achievement of milestone payments. Things got progressively worse as PTT refused payment, Triple Point suspended the work for PTT’s failure to pay, PTT terminated the contract and then appointed a new contractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Vincent C. Zabielski, Pillsbury and Julia Kalinina Belcher, Pillsbury Mr. Zabielski may be contacted at vincent.zabielski@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Belcher may be contacted at julia.belcher@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim Only Impacting Insured's Work

January 08, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In a coverage dispute between two insurers over a claim for damages caused by faulty workmanship, the court found there was no right to equitable contribution or indemnity. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Mallcraft, Inc., 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 67568 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 15, 2023). Mallcraft was the general contractor for a building project and was sued for construction defects. Travelers was an additional insured under a policy issued to a subcontractor, KitCor. Travelers defended Mallcraft in an arbitration. Travelers sought equitable contribution and equitable indemnity from Hartford, Mallcraft's insurer. Mallcraft and Travelers stiulated to a judgment agianst Mallcraft for all costs Travelers incurred in the arbitration. Travelers' insured, KitCor, was not implicated in the construction defect claims against Mallcraft. The judgment set forth findings, including the fact that the underlying plaintiff never made any claim that KitCor perfomred work on the project or casued property damage. 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

Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith

June 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Sixth Circuit rejected the insurer's claim for reverse bad faith against its insured who made a fraudulent claim after her home was destroyed by fire. State Auto Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hargis, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7475 (6th Cir. April 23, 2015). The insured's home burned to the ground early one morning. She filed what she would later admit was a fraudulent insurance claim with State Auto for approximately $866,000. State Auto paid in excess of $425,000 before filing an action to declare the policy void. State Farm's investigation eventually led to the insured's admission that she had a friend burn down her house to collect insurance proceeds. An indictment was issued and the insured pled guilty. She was sentenced to a 60-month term and was ordered to pay restitution to State Auto totaling $672,497. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

April 13, 2017 — Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
OSHA requires employers to maintain safety records for a period of five years. The Occupational Safety and Health Act contains a six month statute of limitations for OSHA to issue citations to employers for violations. In an effort to close the gap between the five years employers are required to keep records and the six month citation window, the Obama Administration implemented the “Volks Rule,” making recordkeeping requirements a “continuing obligation” for employers and effectively extending the statute of limitations for violations of recordkeeping requirements from six months to five years. On March 22, 2017, the Senate approved a House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 83) nullifying the “Volks Rule” and limiting the statute of limitations to six months for recordkeeping violations. President Trump signed the resolution nullifying the “Volks Rule” on April 3, 2017. The nullification appears to be in line with President Trump’s stated goal of generally eliminating governmental regulations. What Does This Mean for California Employers? California manages its own OSHA program, which generally follows the federal program, but is not always in lock-step with Federal OSHA. Cal/OSHA, under its current rules, may only cite employers for recordkeeping violations that occurred during the six months preceding an inspection or review of those records. To date, there has been no indication that California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has plans to adopt the “Volks Rule.” Barring a change, California employers will continue to operate under the status quo and be required to maintain safety records for five years, but will only be exposed to citations for recordkeeping violations occurring within the last six months. Current Cal/OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements Cal/OSHA form 300 (also known as the “OSHA Log 300”) is used to record information about every work-related death and most work-related injuries that cannot be treated with onsite first aid (specific requirements can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 14300 through 14300.48). Currently, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 14300.33 requires employers to retain OSHA Log 300 for a period of five years following the end of the calendar year during which the record was created, despite the fact that Cal/OSHA can only cite employers for failing to maintain such records for up to six months preceding an inspection. Looking to the Future Cal/OSHA is working on regulations that would require electronic submission of OSHA Log 300 records in California. This would bring Cal/OSHA more in line with Federal OSHA, which already requires electronic submission. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com

When Can Customers Sue for Delays?

September 18, 2023 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
Construction projects are subject to many internal and external factors. Due to this, delays are not an uncommon occurrence. Whether delays are the result of bad weather conditions or supply chain issues, contractors and their clients cannot control every aspect of the project. Delay issues are very common construction disputes. Therefore, new and experienced contractors alike need to know when their clients may have a reason for a delay claim. 2 particular types of delays that pose a risk Common obstacles that contractors faced during the height of the COVID-19 global pandemic involved supply chain issues. The lack of materials put various projects on hold across California and the country. This widespread issue was out of contractors’ and clients’ control, meaning they were excusable delays. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

No Coverage for Counterclaim Arising from Insured's Faulty Workmanship

August 03, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit found there was no coverage for the insured's faulty workmanship. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., S.I. v. Mid-American Grain Distributors, LLC, 958 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2020). Mid-American contracted with Lehenbauer to design and construct a grain storage and distribution facility for Lehenbauer. Before the work was competed, Lehenbauer terminated Mid-American's services. Mid-American then sued Lehenbauer for breach of contract. Lehenbauer counterclaimed against Mid-American, alleged breach of "implied duties of workmanlike performance and fitness for a particular purpose" and negligence. Mid-American tendered the counterclaim to American Family. American Family accepted the tender under a reservation of rights, but sued Mid-American for a declaratory judgment. The district court granted American Family's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the counterclaims did not allege an occurrence. 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

Skanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway Barges

January 11, 2022 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
A federal district court judge in Pensacola, Fla., has ruled that Skanska USA was negligent in preparing the Pensacola Bay Bridge construction site for the approach of Hurricane Sally, a September 2020 event that caused dozens of construction barges to break free of their moorings. The barges severely damaged the partly finished new crossing, closing it for months, and later washed ashore on nearby waterfront properties. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Appellate Court Rules That Mistakenly Grading the Wrong Land Is Not an Accident

June 27, 2022 — Jared De Jong & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
In a decision that further muddies the already murky waters of “occurrence” jurisprudence, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that a general liability policy does not cover a homeowner who mistakenly grades the wrong piece of land because the act of grading land is not “accidental.” In Ghukasian v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, ___ Cal. App. 5th ___, 2022 WL 1421511 (2022), a homeowner instructed her contractor to clear and level a piece of land that the homeowner believed was part of her property. Unfortunately, the land was owned by a neighbor, who sued the homeowner and the contractor for trespass and negligence. The homeowner tendered to her insurer, Aegis. The homeowner’s policy contained a standard insuring agreement creating coverage for property damage caused by an “occurrence,” defined by the policy as an “accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The insurer denied coverage, arguing that intentionally grading land is not an accident. Coverage litigation ensued. Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES