SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

October 21, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
One of the most effective collection procedures available to subcontractors and suppliers to California Construction projects is the “stop payment notice” procedure found under California Civil Code sections 9350 – 9364. Under this procedure, the unpaid subcontractor or supplier may serve the stop payment notice on the public entity and the direct or “prime” contractor and cause the public entity to withhold from the direct contractor 125% of the funds identified in the stop payment notice. Thereafter, funds will not generally be released unless the parties reach a settlement agreement or the issue is decided through litigation, arbitration or mediation. There is however an alternative procedure available to direct contractors to expedite the determination of whether a stop payment notice is valid and to possibly obtain an early release of the funds withheld by the public entity. This “summary proceeding” process could result in release of funds to the direct contractor in less than 30 days. The summary proceeding can also be challenged by the unpaid subcontractor or supplier. All public works contractors, subcontractors and suppliers should be aware of the process. The process for direct contractors to release a stop payment notice and for subcontractors and suppliers to challenge the process works as follows: After a California stop payment notice has been served and the public entity has withheld funds accordingly, the direct contractor may challenge the stop payment notice by serving an “affidavit” (basically a sworn statement showing why the stop notice is not valid) on the public entity, demanding that the public entity release all funds withheld. Upon receipt of such an affidavit, the public entity will serve the subcontractor or supplier who served the stop payment notice with a copy of the affidavit, along with a “demand for release of funds”. If the stop payment notice claimant does not respond with a “counter-affidavit” by the date stated on the notice sent by the public entity (“not less than 10 days nor more than 20 days after service on the claimant of a copy of the affidavit”), then the public entity will be within its rights to release the withheld funds to the direct contractor, and the stop payment notice claimant will relinquish its stop payment notice rights. 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

---

Kahana Feld Receives 2024 OCCDL Top Legal Organizations for DEI Award

September 30, 2024 — Linda Carter - Kahana Feld
IRVINE, CA – Sep. 12, 2024 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that the firm received the 2024 Top Legal Organizations for DEI Award from the Orange County Coalition for Diversity in the Law (OCCDL). The firm will be recognized at an awards gala at The Westin South Coast Plaza on October 3. Each year, the OCCDL recognizes individuals and organizations who have advanced diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Orange County legal community, whether through their excellence in the law or their direct efforts to promote DEI. Kahana Feld was recognized for programs such as its DEI book club and its regular webinars on topics like implicit bias. The firm supports various DEI organizations and initiatives in the Orange County area, including the Orange County Asian American Bar Association, the Orange County Women Lawyers Association, and the Jewish Federation of Orange County. The OCCDL is a collaborative effort of professionals from leading Orange County law firms and other community partners promoting the advancement of diverse attorneys in Orange County. The OCCDL partners with local schools and organizations to increase community involvement and provides education focused on diversity to students and attorneys. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

---

Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Cold and wet weather was not bad news for the lumber industry. The weather in the first quarter set or tied records for both precipitation and low temperatures. Not good weather for building. Construction was delayed as a result, leading to less call for lumber. In response, there was a 15 percent drop in lumber futures, continuing a decline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

June 10, 2019 — Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

---

Infrared Photography Illuminates Construction Defects and Patent Trolling

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Reuben Saltzman, a home inspector in the Minneapolis area wrote a piece for the Star Tribune in which he discussed the use of infrared photography in home inspections. Lack of insulation and water intrusion show up clearly on infrared photography where there is not yet any visible damage. Moist or cold areas show up as darker than their surroundings. Mr. Saltzman included one photo with his article in which the problem shows up as a hot spot: a carpet installer had covered over a floor register. Mr. Saltzman’s use of infrared photography may be in danger, as he recently learned that a Mississippi firm has actually taken out a patent on using infrared photography for home inspections. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

March 01, 2017 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A re-booted construction defects reform bill recently passed its first Senate committee, according to the Denver Business Journal. Next, Senate Bill 156, sponsored by Sen. Owen Hill, R-Colorado Springs, heads to the Senate floor for debate. SB 156 “would require that condominium owners alleging construction defects take their disputes to arbitration or mediation if requested by builders,” the Denver Business Journal reported. “It also would require that homeowners be informed of the consequences of filing legal actions over purported disputes and that a majority of all owners in a condominium complex vote to proceed with legal action, rather than just a majority of homeowners association board members.” However, it is almost identical to the failed measures that were introduced in 2014 and 2015. Homeowners association group members and owners of defective condominiums argued against the measure, stating “that the effort would not improve the quality of building in the state, but simply would block aggrieved Coloradans from taking their complaints before a jury of their peers.” Proponent of the bill, Tom Clark, CEO of Metro Denver Economic Development Corp., said “that Denver’s housing costs have risen since the first bill was introduced in 2013 to the sixth-most-expensive in the country – and are tops for any metro area not on a coast.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

March 04, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorezCDJ STAFF

After five years of legal battles, the condo owners of the El Cortez Hotel building in downtown San Diego settled for $6.4 million, as reported by The San Diego Union-Tribune on March 28, 2011. The Homeowners Association will net just over $3 million from the settlement.



The litigation may have had an adverse effect on the value of the condos within the El Cortez Hotel building. According to an article by Kelly Bennett of Voice of San Diego, “Many condos in the building originally sold for more than $600,000. Currently, the three units on the market are asking for just more than $200,000, the U-T said.”



Andrew Berman, the owners’ attorney, told The San Diego Union-Tribune that the five years of litigation included six lawsuits, 200 depositions, and multiple construction tests.



Read the full story... (San Diego Union Tribune)



Read the full story... (Voice of San Diego)

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

---

Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq. Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project. The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’” The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim. Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims. Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---