SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test

February 18, 2020 — Blake Dillion - Payne & Fears LLP
Construction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption. California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry, if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied.

1. The subcontract is in writing;
2. The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license;
3. If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration;
4. The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor;
5. The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or assist in providing the services;
6. The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided; and
7. The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

The contractor must be able to establish each of the above criteria for the construction exemption to apply. If the contractor is successful, the long standing multi-factor test for determining independent contractor vs. employee status as described in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) will apply. You should review your processes and procedures for engaging subcontractors to ensure that you can satisfy the above criteria. If you have questions about the application of AB5, the construction exemption, or the Borello factors, you should speak with an attorney. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com

---

Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion

April 26, 2021 — Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and Williams
The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a wide-ranging opinion, Continental Casualty Co. v. Rohr, Inc.,[1] which significantly extended the current restrictive view on when a general liability policy can be considered exhausted so as to trigger overlying excess coverage. The case marks a further step away from Judge Augustus Hand’s almost-century-old ruling in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.,[2] which held that an underlying policy could be “exhausted” by a below-limits settlement as long as the insured was willing to “fill the gap” between the settlement amount and the limits of the policy.[3] In recent years, courts in California and elsewhere have increasingly walked back Zeig’s broad ruling – holding in Qualcomm v. Certain Underwriters,[4] for example, that an insured’s below-limits settlement with primary carriers does not exhaust the limits of primary coverage, or allow the insured to access overlying excess coverage.[5] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Anchorage Building Codes Credited for Limited Damage After Quakes

January 08, 2019 — Christine Kilpatrick - Engineering News-Record
The magnitudes 7.0 and 5.7 earthquakes that struck Anchorage, Alaska, on Nov. 30 shook buildings and shattered highways, but caused limited structural damage and no reported loss of life, mostly due to the depth and location of the quake’s epicenter, as well as the city and state’s stringent building requirements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christine Kilpatrick - ENR
Ms. Kilpatrick may be contacted at kilpatrickc@enr.com

---

Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent

March 22, 2018 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates

Can a construction manager-agent / owner’s representative hired directly by the owner be liable to the general contractor in negligence? An argument likely posited by many general contractors on projects gone awry where there is a separate construction manager. Well, here is an interesting case out of Louisiana that supports a negligence claim against a construction manager-agent.

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

---

Last Parcel of Rancho del Oro Masterplan Purchased by Cornerstone Communties

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to San Diego Source, “A partnership controlled by Ure Kretowicz's Cornerstone Communities has paid a reported $25 million for a 28-acre residential parcel located on the northwest corner of College Avenue and Old Grove Road in the Rancho del Oro masterplan in Oceanside,” California. Cornerstone plans to create a “338-unit luxury apartment development,” with amenities including “resort-level clubhouse with an Olympic size swimming pool, spa, barbecue area, conferencing center” and more. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Students for Fair Admissions: Shaking the Foundations of EEOC Programs and M/WBE Requirements

October 16, 2023 — Denise Farris Scrivener - The Dispute Resolver
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, holding that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 143 S. Ct. 2141, 216 L. Ed. 2d 857 (2023). On July 13, 2023, thirteen state Attorney Generals, relying on Students for Fair Admissions, issued a joint letter to the CEOs of the Fortune 100 companies, urging the elimination of all race-based programs in EEOC and government and private contracting. On July 19, 2023, a Tennessee district court judge issued an injunctive order against the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) application program on the basis of the program’s race-based presumption of disadvantage. Ultima Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 220CV00041DCLCCRW, 2023 WL 4633481 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2023). The message to be taken from these developments: all race-based programs and, by extension, potentially all gender-based programs—including ones that require or reward participation of Minority Business Enterprises (“MBE”) or Women Business Enterprise (“WBE”) in construction programs—currently stand on shaky ground. This post will explain the constitutional foundations at play, the decisions shaking things up, and why well-rounded dialogue is urgently needed to address the status of these programs before they’re dead in the water. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denise Farris Scrivener, Farris Legal Services LLC
Ms. Scrivener may be contacted at denise@farrislegal.net

---

Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

October 21, 2024 — Heather Zipperer - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
The recent Town of Mancos v. Aqua Engineering case is an insightful example of how well written contracts and timely legal action can make all the difference in resolving disputes between municipalities, general contractors, and subcontractors. The ruling favored Aqua Engineering; a subcontractor that played a role in a wastewater treatment facility project gone wrong. The court’s decision highlighted key legal principles, including the economic loss rule and the importance of well-structured contracts in construction disputes. Whether you are a subcontractor looking to avoid undue liability or a general contractor seeking to ensure subcontractors shoulder their fair portion of responsibility, this case offers valuable lessons for all parties involved in construction projects. The Background: A Wastewater Project with Issues In 2008, the Town of Mancos, Colorado, hired Souder, Miller & Associates (“SMA”) to design a new wastewater treatment facility. SMA subcontracted Aqua Engineering to help implement a specific wastewater treatment system known as the Multi-Stage Activated Biological Process (“MSABP”). However, after construction, the facility never worked as expected. For years, the Town faced ongoing issues, and despite Aqua’s involvement in attempts to fix the problems, the facility remained dysfunctional. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

---

Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

July 30, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:

The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.

InDyne was subsequently awarded a contract with the Air Force and shortly thereafter sent a subcontract to Beacon and requested Beacon’s “best and final” pricing. Beacon protested by letter stating that it was only required to act consistently with its original bid pricing. Beacon then returned the subcontract with the original bid pricing and accepting all but a termination for convenience provision. Shortly thereafter, InDyne informed Beacon that InDyne had awarded the subcontract to one of Beacon’s competitors. Beacon of course sued and argued that the teaming agreement required that InDyne award the subcontract to Beacon. 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

---