Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Mediation v. Arbitration, Both Private Dispute Resolution but Very Different Sorts

January 24, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I often get calls from clients, potential construction clients, and other construction and business professionals with questions about arbitration or mediation clauses in the contracts that they are reviewing or drafting. When I get these calls, it often becomes clear that, understandably, there is some confusion as to what each of these alternate dispute resolution processes entails. I thought I’d put together a quick primer on what each is and their differences. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

January 11, 2022 — Anne Idsal Austin & Joel Simon - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Our guest today is Anne Idsal Austin, a nationally recognized environmental lawyer who has held several high-profile federal and state regulatory roles. As a partner who recently joined Pillsbury’s environmental and natural resources practice, she provides strategic consulting and policy advice, helping clients navigate the dynamic regulatory and legal waters in an era of energy transition, decarbonization and an emphasis on ESG principles. Prior to joining Pillsbury, Anne was the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, known as OAR or OAR, where she had primary oversight over United States clean air policy and regulation. Prior to that, she served as the EPA regional administrator for Region 6, overseeing all federal environmental programs in Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Prior to joining EPA, Anne held several positions where she shaped environmental and energy policy at the highest levels of government in the state of Texas. Welcome to our podcast, Anne. Anne Austin: Thanks so much. It’s great to be here today, Joel. Joel Simon: Anne, I’m really excited for this chance to speak with you because there’s so much going on at the federal environmental policy level, and it would be great to have someone really knowledgeable present this to us in an organized fashion. So with that minor task ahead of you, could you start us off with a brief overview of the environmental regulatory landscape? Reprinted courtesy of Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury and Joel Simon, Pillsbury Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Simon may be contacted at joel.simon@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

November 26, 2014 — Casey J. Quinn - Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
In Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys’ fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder. The first arises during the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 40 process (Nevada’s Right to Repair law). After a builder receives notice of construction defects, it is required to provide the claimant with a written response to each defect, which may include a proposal for monetary compensation (including contribution from a subcontractor, supplier, or design professional). See NRS 40.6472. If a claimant unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer of settlement included in the response and decides to commence litigation, the court may deny the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and award attorneys’ fees and costs to the builder. See NRS 40.650. Thus, by including a reasonable offer of monetary compensation in a Chapter 40 response, a builder could possibly avoid paying any fees and costs and even recover its own fees in defending against the claim. A second method for shifting fees and costs is through a written offer of judgment (OOJ). See NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. Not limited solely to construction defect matters, an OOJ is a useful tool in all kinds of litigation. OOJs are designed to facilitate and encourage pre-trial settlement by incentivizing parties to make reasonable settlement offers that—when unreasonably rejected—have the consequence of shifting the right to recover attorneys’ fees. Basically, when a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court cannot award any attorneys’ fees and costs to the rejecting party and may award attorneys’ fees incurred from the date of the offer to the entry of judgment, as well as all reasonable costs, to the party who made the offer. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that when a homeowner rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, it can wipe out that homeowner’s right to Chapter 40 fees and costs. See Gunderson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 27, 2014). In other words, “While NRS Chapter 40 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees proximately caused by a construction defect, it does not guarantee it.” Id. Because of the potentially harsh consequences of rejecting an OOJ, there are specific requirements that must be met to trigger them. An offer of judgment must be made in writing, can be made at any time at least 10 days before trial, and is irrevocable for 10 days with no provision for withdrawal before the 10 days expire. See Nava v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 396, 46 P.3d 60 (2002). A party may make successive offers of judgment, but the most recent offer extinguishes previous offers and is controlling for determining the date from which attorneys’ fees may be awarded. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006). In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the purpose of OOJs are not to cause plaintiffs to unfairly forego legitimate claims. However, when a valid offer of judgment is made, the offer is rejected, and the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, a court must evaluate whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good faith; whether the offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and whether the fees sought by the offer are reasonable and justified. “After weighing the foregoing factors, the district judge may, where warranted, award up to the full amount of fees requested.” Id. It is worth noting that in Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that when a party rejects a reasonable OOJ and is foreclosed from recovering fees and costs, the party is likewise foreclosed from an award of fees and costs under Chapter 40. This means that even if a builder fails to include a monetary settlement offer as part of a Chapter 40 response, it may still avoid paying the claimant’s fees and costs with a reasonable and timely OOJ. Finally, it is important to remember that OOJs are a powerful tool that can cut both ways. If an OOJ is not reasonable and timely, or if it fails to contemplate all the potential recovery of an offeree, the OOJ may have no effect on the outcome of a case. Moreover, if a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, that party could end up paying the offeror’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer. Given this powerful impact, OOJs should be an integral part of pre-litigation planning and overall litigation strategy. About the Author Casey J. Quinn is an associate in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial, construction, and insurance litigation and appellate work. Casey can be reached by email at Casey.Quinn@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.S. Homeownership Rate Rises for First Time in Two Years

October 28, 2015 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
The homeownership rate in the U.S. rose for the first time in two years as sustained job growth and low borrowing costs fueled demand for housing. The share of Americans who own their homes was 63.7 percent in the third quarter, up from 63.4 percent in the previous three months, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. It was the first quarterly increase since the third quarter of 2013. The pool of eligible buyers is expanding as U.S. employment improves and families who lost properties during the recession repair their credit and seek another chance at owning. Sales of existing homes rebounded in September to the second-highest level since February 2007. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

January 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
If you are a construction attorney like me (or anyone that takes cases to court), you deal with statutes of limitation on a daily basis. These statutes seem pretty simple. A party has “X” amount of time in which to file its lawsuit after accural of the cause of action. In a breach of contract suit, the accrual is the date of breach. Easy, right? Wrong, at least in some circumstances. Take for example, the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. PAE Applied Techs., LLC out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this unpublished opinion the Court looked at “continuous breach” versus “series of separate breaches.” The basic facts are that in 2000 Flour entered into a contract with PAE whereby PAE requested and claims to have received consent from Flour to a 2.3% administrative cost cap on Flour’s work on an Air Force contract. Flour claimed that it did not agree to this cap. In 2002, Flour begain billing PAE for its costs plus the 2.3% administrative markup and billed in this fashion for the first full year. However, in subsequent years and for the next 11 years, Flour billed PAE at a higher markup rate than the 2.3%. PAE disputed the increased markup and paid Flour at the 2.3% rate. Flour periodically protested but made no move to court until it filed suit in March of 2016. After a bench trial, the district court found that Flour had agreed to the cap and found for PAE. 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

Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Considerations for Optimizing Dispute Resolution Clauses

June 05, 2023 — Michael Filbin - The Dispute Resolver
In the April 27, 2023 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series moderated by Manuel del Valle, Sergio Andre Laclau (Partner at Mello Torres) and Liza Akins (Senior Assistant GC and Division Counsel at ARCO Design/Build) offered the following strategies for drafting effective ADR clauses in construction contracts:

Define the ADR process for various types of disputes.

Not all disputes on a construction project are the same, and the parties can tailor the ADR process to different situations. For example, the parties could choose to arbitrate complex disputes and resolve minor claims through mediation. Differentiating the ADR process between complex and minor disputes can save parties time and money. While Liza prefers arbitration for complex claims because you can get a quick and final decision from an arbitrator experienced with construction disputes, she noted that arbitration costs can add up quickly. Therefore, if the dollar amount in dispute is relatively small, arbitration may not make sense financially. Mediation tends to be a comparatively cheaper and faster option. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Filbin, Cozen O'Connor
Mr. Filbin may be contacted at mfilbin@cozen.com

PA Supreme Court to Rule on Scope of Judges' Credibility Determinations

April 20, 2016 — Max Kimbrough – White and Williams LLP
In IA Construction v. WCAB (Rhodes), the Commonwealth Court reversed the WCJ’s decision to deny the employer’s Modification Petition on the basis that the employer’s medical expert was not credible. In the underlying case, the claimant was determined to have sustained compensable work injuries to his head, neck and back. The employer subsequently filed a Modification Petition, seeking to modify benefits to Partial Disability based on an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) which found that the claimant had a 34% whole body impairment. The WCJ ultimately denied the employer’s Modification Petition, finding that the IRE physician's categorization of the claimant's injuries and interpretation of the claimant's impairment level from his brain injury was not credible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Max Kimbrough, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Kimbrough may be contacted at kimbroughm@whiteandwilliams.com

Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage

January 31, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

The broker was not negligent when it proposed additional coverage that was rejected by the insured. Cromer v. Rosenzweig Ins. Agency Inc., 2017 N.Y. App Div. LEXIS 8969 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 21, 2017).

Plaintiff was injured while employed as a painter at property owned by Allen Skriloff. Coverage was denied because injuries to employees, contractors and employees of contractors were excluded. Plaintiff sued Skriloff and obtained a jury verdict of $6.1 million. Skirloff assigned to plaintiff all rights and claims held against the insurer and insurance brokers.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES