Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

April 10, 2019 — Parker A. Lewton - Smith Currie
A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

June 27, 2022 — Gerard J. Onorata - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
During a construction project, it is not uncommon for disputes to arise between a general contractor and a subcontractor. Frequently, these disputes involve claims for extra work and delay damages that can be attributed to the owner of the project due to deficient design or unforeseen conditions. When these occasions arise, the parties can often resolve these claims without the need for litigation or arbitration by entering into a “liquidating agreement.” What is a Liquidating Agreement? Because there is no direct contractual relationship between a subcontractor and an owner, there does not exist a legal basis for a subcontractor to assert a breach of contract claim against a project owner. In legal parlance, this is known as “lack of contractual privity.” A liquidating agreement bridges this contractual gap and allows a subcontractor to pass its claim against the owner through the general contractor. Essentially, with a liquidating agreement, the general contractor acts as a conduit for passing through the subcontractor’s claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

July 05, 2023 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A federal judge sentenced a contractor’s former superintendent June 20 for misleading officials about the source of fill and quality of contaminated fill used on the $410 million Route 6/10 interchange project in Rhode Island. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

April 15, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I questioned whether to even write this post. Because, of course, YOU would never find yourself hightailing it out of town with the California Contractor’s State License Board (“CSLB”) sniffing down your tail pipes. Then again, mistaken identities occur all the time. So, here’s what you need to know if the CSLB mistakes you for one of “those” contractors. What violations are subject to CSLB enforcement actions? The CSLB can take enforcement actions based on any one of numerous violations set forth under the California Business and Professions Code (“B&P Code”), including: 1. B&P Code §7107: Abandonment of a construction project or operation without legal excuse. 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

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

June 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. 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

Pay Inequities Are a Symptom of Broader Gender Biases, Studies Show

May 17, 2021 — Pam Radtke Russell, Debra K. Rubin, Janice L. Tuchman & Alisa Zevin - ENR
Pay gaps between men and women are a problem in the AEC industry and beyond—and they are a sign of complex, systemic problems in companies. “It’s more of a symptom,” said Elizabeth Walgram, senior consultant in the compensation and career strategies practice at human resources consulting firm Segal. Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR, Debra K. Rubin, ENR, Janice L. Tuchman, ENR and Alisa Zevin, ENR Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Ms. Tuchman may be contacted at tuchmanj@enr.com Ms. Zevin may be contacted at zevina@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!

May 30, 2022 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O Partner Tyler D. Offenhauser and Senior Associate Kevin B. Wheeler prevailed on their Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) on behalf of a public entity, the City of Murrieta Fire Department today! As a matter of background, authorities were first called to a residence in Murrieta after a report of a gas line rupture. Firefighters and Southern California Gas Company responded to the call. As a crew from SoCalGas was trying to shut off the gas an explosion happened, leveling the home and killing 31-year-old SoCalGas employee Wade Kilpatrick. 30 surrounding homeowners have now alleged personal injuries, including TBI, as a result of the explosion. News agencies reported that Plaintiff Anthony Borel sustained a severe head injury and was placed in a coma. Plaintiff’s injuries included an epidural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, bilateral corneal abrasions, right orbital fracture, right temporal fracture, right maxillary fracture, frontal skull fracture, 18% partial-thickness burns to the face, abdomen, arms and legs, and a severe TBI with cognitive deficiencies. Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $20,000,000.00. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed Senate Bill 625. Starting in July 2014, anyone who sells a home will have to disclose all claims made of construction defects and the status of these claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES