FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

September 22, 2016 — William L. Porter – Porter Law Group Bulletin
For almost the last sixty years, the standard for bidding on California construction projects has been governed by the landmark case of Drennan v. Star Paving (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409; which generally states that the contractor bidding to perform work for a project owner is entitled to rely on the bids of subcontractors in formulating its own bid to do the work. Under the equitable legal doctrine of “promissory estoppel”, which serves as the foundation of the Drennan case, even though there was no actual “contract” between the contractor and subcontractor at the time of bid, the contractor was entitled to enforce the subcontractor’s bid in reliance on this doctrine. For bidding purposes, promissory estoppel serves as an equitable substitute for an actual contract. The courts have, since that time, allowed promissory estoppel to act as a substitute for the contract in public bidding because, in equity, when a contractor “reasonably” relies on a subcontractor’s bid in formulating its own bid, it would be unjust to allow the subcontractor to withdraw a bid on which the contractor had relied in submitting its own successful bid. 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

---

Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

October 28, 2024 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Review of (a) RCW 60.30.010-020, (b) RCW 49.17.530, (c) RCW 19.95.020, (d) RCW 39.116.005, et seq., (e) RCW 36.70B.080, and (f) RCW 39.12.010 and .13 While much of the focus on the recent legislative updates has been on RCW 39.04.360, a number of other legislative changes may also have significant impacts on Washington’s construction industry. Six of these changes are summarized below. A. RCW 60.30.010 and .020 (SSB 6108) – Concerning Retainage on Private Construction, Effective June 6, 2024 Last year, ESSB 5528 imposed restrictions and obligations related to retainage and timing of final payment on private (non-public works) projects. It capped retainage at 5%, required prompt payment on final payments, and required owners to accept a retainage bond on private construction projects, excluding single-family residential construction less than 12 units. This year, SSB 6108 adds suppliers to the statutes (RCW 60.30.010 and 0.020) pertaining to retainage on private construction projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

---

Construction Defect Claims are on the Rise Due to Pandemic-Related Issues

April 25, 2022 — Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ Staff
According to a recent New York Times article, pandemic-related issues such as “stop-and-start construction, global supply chain issues, pressure from lenders and yo-yoing housing prices” has caused an increase in construction defect suits for new apartment developments: “Complaints and legal claims are already emerging, signaling that a confluence of all factors amid the Covid crisis could continue to be a problem for new construction — from entry-level studios to top-tier penthouses — for years to come, according to lawyers and development consultants.” A Times analysis of Department of Buildings data by Marketproof demonstrated an increase in complaints beginning March 1st, 2020: “During the first year of the pandemic, new residential buildings recorded an average of five complaints per building, a 46 percent jump from the same period the previous year.” Steven D. Sladkus, a partner at Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas told the Times that his “'phone’s been ringing off the hook' with complaints from homeowners in new condo buildings” regarding “heating problems, poor sound insulation, fire safety issues and faulty elevators.” Developers have faced a variety of pandemic-related challenges including a disrupted supply chain, shut downs, shipping delays, labor shortages, and increased material prices. In 2020, the lack of availability of vaccines caused some construction to halt: “Suddenly one guy calls in sick and the whole crew of electricians can’t show up,” Steven Zirinsky, co-chair of the building codes committee at the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects told the Times. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Proving Contractor Licensure in California. The Tribe Has Spoken

October 21, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
As I mentioned in an earlier post, in California you must “prove” you’re a licensed contractor in a construction case. But in whose hands are you entitled to place your fate – the judge or the jury? Well, the tribe has spoken. Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera In Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, Case Nos. B258563 and B258648, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (September 15, 2015), general contractor Jeff Tracy, Inc. doing business as Land Forms Construction (“Land Forms”) was walloped with a nearly $5.5 million judgment for being improperly licensed on a park project owned by the City of Pico Rivera (“City”). The judgment followed a bench trial over Land Form’s objection that it was entitled to a jury trial. 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

---

EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

February 10, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register. Background As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency. In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Review the Terms and Conditions of Purchase Orders- They Could be Important!

February 15, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
There are many moving parts on a commercial construction project. These range from site surveys to weather events to ordering materials. On most large construction projects, the prime contract and subcontracts are generally drafted ahead of time and hopefully reviewed by both in house personnel and an experienced construction attorney. However, there are situations, particularly where the contract may be one for service or provision of materials where individual purchase orders are issued as opposed to what would likely be looked at as a long form subcontract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC

---

Texas Supreme Court to Review Eight-Corners Duty-to-Defend Rule

April 05, 2021 — Jared De Jong - Payne & Fears
The Texas Supreme Court has accepted certified questions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to clarify Texas’ eight-corners rule for determining the existence of a duty to defend. In Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit asked the Texas Supreme Court to provide guidance on Texas insurance law. In Bitco, the insured was sued for negligently drilling an irrigation well. The insured allegedly got a drilling bit stuck in a bore hole, refused to fix the issue, and eventually abandoned the well. The policy did not cover continuing property damage known to the insured before the policy incepted. The policy period ran from Oct. 6, 2015 to Oct. 6, 2016, and the parties stipulated the drill bit became stuck in November 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears
Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com

---

The Private Works: Preliminary Notice | Are You Using the Correct Form?

August 20, 2019 — William L. Porter, Esq. - Porter Law Group
The Private Works – Preliminary Notice form which contractors, subcontractors and suppliers had become accustomed to using for many years changed in 2004. Despite this change in law, many in the construction industry have still not started using the correct new form. Changes in the law, championed by the American Subcontractors’ Association, gave a significant new benefit to subcontractors and suppliers by giving the subcontractor or supplier some expectation of actually receiving notice of when a Notice of Completion or a Notice of Cessation has been recorded on many private works projects. The law also changed the language of the California Preliminary Notice that subcontractors and suppliers must use to protect their mechanics’ lien, bond claim and stop payment notice rights. If Owners do not send out the Notice of Completion as required by law they incur a diminishing of the protections afforded to them when they record a Notice of Completion or Notice of Cessation on many private works projects. The revised law requires private project owners to notify all subcontractors and suppliers within 10 days after recording a Notice of Completion or Notice of Cessation that a Notice of Completion or a Notice of Cessation has actually been recorded. In order to receive such notice, the subcontractor or supplier must properly serve the new form of Preliminary Notice. If this properly occurs and the private project owner provides the required notice, then the subcontractor or supplier will have 30 days to record a Mechanics’ Lien. However, if an owner under such circumstances fails to properly notify a subcontractor or supplier within 10 days after recording a Notice of Completion or Notice of Cessation, then the Subcontractor or supplier will have 90 days to record a Mechanics’ Lien. The details of the law can be found in California Civil Code sections 8190, 8414 and 8416. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Esq., Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---