SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Dispute Review Boards for Real-Time Dispute Avoidance and Resolution

August 20, 2019 — Neal J. Sweeney, Esq. - ConsensusDocs
The use of dispute tribunals generally referred to as Dispute Review Boards or DRBs on major projects has matured. Use of a DRB cannot guarantee elimination of post-project litigation, but when used properly, a DRB can be an enormously effective tool to avoid and resolve disputes rapidly and during construction. The modest out-of-pocket costs of a DRB can pay big dividends. DRBs offer the opportunity to shorten the life cycle of a dispute by requiring the principals to confront and address the merits of their dispute, rather than simply hunkering down and focusing on posturing and preparing for arbitration or litigation. Even when a DRB cannot immediately resolve a dispute, the process can still facilitate subsequent settlement and cost-effectively prepare both parties for formal adjudication. DRBs can also enhance communications and help the parties avoid and resolve problems before they spiral into disputes. DRBs were first and are most widely used on big civil and infrastructure projects, but the benefits of a DRB extend equally to major building projects, particularly hospitals, and industrial projects and should be used in those sectors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Neal J. Sweeney, Esq., Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Sweeney may be contacted at nsweeney@joneswalker.com

---

Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

April 17, 2019 — Ian Williamson - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
In response to a tragic balcony collapse incident where the public later learned the contractor had paid millions to settlement defect cases in the preceding years, the California legislature passed, the state contractor’s license board is now implementing, a public disclosure requirement for certain construction defect claims. The disclosure requirement is triggered by a judgment (which is not a new requirement), an arbitration award, or a settlement of certain construction defect claims. These requirements are codified at California Business & Professions Code sections 7071.20-22. What types of Projects: This requirement applies only if all of the following apply:

A) Residential B) Multi-Family; and C) Rental property

Limitations on Claims – The reporting requirement only applies if all of the following are true:

A) The claim is against a CSLB licensee (not a design professional) acting in the capacity of a contractor; B) The claim is for a structural defect; C) The total claim is valued at $1 million (not including investigation costs); D) SB800 does not apply; E) The action was filed after January 1, 2019; and F) If a lawsuit, the case was designated complex by the courts (which may not apply if only contractor is sued).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ian Williamson, Gordon & Rees
Mr. Williamson may be contacted at igwilliamson@grsm.com

---

California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

May 04, 2020 — Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
Many businesses shift risk by requiring others with whom they do business – e.g., vendors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others – to procure insurance on their behalf by making the business an “additional insured” under the other person’s liability insurance policy. Unfortunately, insurance companies sometimes treat these additional insureds as second-class citizens, refusing to acknowledge that the additional insured has the same rights as the policyholder, who paid the premium. In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. SMG Holdings, a California appellate court removes any doubt whether these additional insureds are third-party beneficiaries entitled to the same rights – and bound by the same duties – as the entity that bought the policy. While the dispute at issue in SMG Holdings was a narrow one – i.e., whether the additional insured was bound by the policy’s arbitration clause – the implications of its holding are far ranging in ways that, in some instances, may benefit the additional insured. For example, because the additional insured is an intended beneficiary under the policy, neither the insurer nor the policyholder may do anything to impair the additional insured’s rights under the policy; if they do, they may be liable for tortiously interfering with the additional insured’s contract rights. This means that (again, by way of example) if the insurer attempts to rescind, or cancel, or amend the policy in a way that impairs the additional insured’s rights, the additional insured may have recourse. It also means that if the policyholder does something untoward that jeopardizes the additional insured’s rights under the policy, the policyholder may be liable to the additional insured for any resulting harm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com

---

Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

June 15, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Public payment bonds (excluding FDOT payment bonds) are governed under Florida statute s. 255.05. As it pertains to venue—the location to sue a public payment bond–the statute provides in relevant portion: (5) In addition to the provisions of chapter 47, any action authorized under this section may be brought in the county in which the public building or public work is being construction or repaired. *** (1)(e) Any provision in a payment bond…which restricts venue of any proceeding relating to such bond…is unenforceable. Now, what happens if a subcontractor sues only a payment bond but its subcontract with the general contractor contains a mandatory venue provision? For example, what if the general contractor is located in Lee County and the subcontract contains a venue provision for Lee County, the project is located in Collier County, the subcontractor is located in Miami-Dade County, and the surety issues bonds in Miami-Dade County? Does venue have to be in Lee County per the mandatory venue provision? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

August 04, 2011 — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

Recently, in Caribou Ridge Homes, LLC v. Zero Energy, LLC, et al., Case No. 10CV1094, Boulder County District Court Judge Ingrid S. Bakke entered a ruling and order on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Determination of Question of Law Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 56(h) on Issue of Damages. The Order found that the Plaintiff was not a homeowner intended to be protected by the Homeowner Protection Act (the “HPA”) and thus could not pursue its claims for consequential damages against Defendant.



By way of background, on June 18, 2008, Plaintiff Caribou Ridge Homes, LLC (“Caribou”) entered into a Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Contractor AIA Document A114-2001 (the “Contract”) with Defendant Zero Energy, LLC (“Zero Energy”). Plaintiff hired Zero Energy to serve as a general contractor for the construction of a single-family home in the Caribou Ridge subdivision in Nederland, Colorado. A provision in the contract contained a mutual waiver of consequential damages (“Waiver”).

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

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

---

Stay-At-Home Orders and Work Restrictions with 50 State Matrix

April 27, 2020 — Smith Currie
As each day of the coronavirus pandemic passes, more and more states, cities and counties across the country are implementing stay-at-home (or shelter-in-place) orders and restrictions on individuals and businesses. These restrictions are impacting numerous persons and businesses, including those working in the construction industry. Smith Currie is keeping abreast of these restrictions and has developed the matrix below identifying statewide and local restrictions in place. This matrix is by no means complete, and we will continue updating it as we become aware of additional orders. In the write ups included with the PDF below, you will find links to the applicable orders with more detailed information. Consult legal counsel for advice on the impact of a particular restriction or restrictions to your business. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie
The firm Smith Currie may be contacted at info@smithcurrie.com

---

It’s Getting Harder and Harder to be a Concrete Supplier in California

December 04, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In 2015, the California state legislature passed AB 219, which amended the state’s prevailing wage law to add Labor Code section 1720.9, which requires the payment of prevailing wages to “ready-mixed concrete” drivers on state and local public works projects. Ready-mixed concrete suppliers filed suit in Allied Concrete and Supply Co. v. Baker (September 20, 2018) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the law on the ground that, because AB 219 singled out ready-mixed concrete drivers but not other drivers of materials on state and local public works projects, the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 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

---

Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

April 26, 2021 — Gernot Wagner - Bloomberg
“Once you put capital money to work, jobs are created.” These are not the words of President Joe Biden, announcing his administration’s infrastructure plan in Pittsburgh on Wednesday. Nor were they the words of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, standing on a train platform to announce expanded service, or of any of the administration’s economists charged with touting the virtues of the $2.25 trillion spending plan. It was Michael Morris, then-CEO of Ohio utility American Electric Power, who uttered them on an investor call a decade ago. AEP was fighting an Environmental Protection Agency proposal to reduce mercury and other pollutants from power plants, citing the expense of creating jobs to install new scrubbers on smokestacks or build cleaner plants. Morris, taking his fiduciary responsibility to the utility’s investors seriously, argued these new roles would come at a cost to AEP and were, thus, bad. What he did not question, and correctly so, was whether more investments would indeed create more jobs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gernot Wagner, Bloomberg

---