SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Ghosts of Tariffs Past May Help Us in the Future

January 07, 2025 — Kellie Ros - ConsensusDocs
The havoc material tariffs have caused the construction industry is nothing new. President-Elect Donald Trump imposed heavy tariffs on steel and aluminum in his first administration in 2016. While the tariffs themselves were not wholly unexpected, the ripple effect of those tariffs (coupled with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic) caused unexpected challenges for the construction industry. Those included allocating the risk of the additional costs caused by tariffs, supply and demand issues, grappling with escalation clauses, and navigating fixed price projects. The industry must now utilize the lessons learned from the rear-view mirror to strategically prepare for what was promised to be a second round of tariffs come January 2025. Tariffs’ Impacts on Material Prices Everywhere New or increased tariffs have the potential to raise prices for a wide range of construction inputs. Based on simple supply and demand principles, this includes inputs produced domestically that compete with foreign imports. For example, if a 20% tariff is imposed on Chinese steel, contractors may look to procure Brazil or U.S. steel in an effort to cut their costs. Such a rush to those less-costly alternatives may result in a supply shortage or an increase in prices in the marketplace across the globe. This occurred in 2016 when material prices indirectly related to the inputs on which the tariffs were imposed even increased. Contractors may be well served to get ahead of anticipated price increases and purchase materials now or take other actions in negotiating contracts to protect themselves. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kellie Ros, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Ros may be contacted at kros@pecklaw.com

---

Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

April 15, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin & Melinda M. Carrido – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On April 8, 2014, in Martinez v. County of Ventura, Case No. B24476, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal reversed the jury's defense verdict for the County of Ventura, holding that the County's evidence in support of its Design Immunity defense to a public property dangerous condition claim was insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff filed suit against the County of Ventura (the "County") after sustaining paraplegic injuries when his motorcycle struck an asphalt berm abutting a raised drain (the top-hat drain system) on a road in the County. The drain system consisted of a heavy steel cover on three legs elevated eight to ten inches off the ground, with a sloped asphalt berm to channel water into the drain. Plaintiff alleged that the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property pursuant to California Government Code section 835. Under this Section, a public entity is liable for "injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained, and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time before the injury to have taken preventative measures." The jury found the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Melinda M. Carrido, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Carrido may be contacted at mcarrido@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

July 28, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced “the opening of its newest regional office at One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street, 36th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103,” according to a press release. Elizabeth Chalik will be the managing partner at the new location. Chalik is “a highly regarded litigator with close to 15 years of trial experience” and her practice has focused on products liability, casualty, toxic tort and transportation litigation. Furthermore, Chalik is admitted to practice law in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. “It is fitting that as we celebrate WSHB’s 19th year, we are opening our 19th office,” said Daniel Berman, Firm Chairman and Co-founder. “With this expansion, we continue our pattern of strategic long term growth. That, coupled with Liz’s proven track record and many years in Philadelphia, further expands our ability to better serve our clients in the Northeast.” Chalik has been recognized on the Super Lawyers List of Rising Stars for three years running. “I am thrilled to be joining Wood Smith Henning & Berman. WSHB’s long-standing reputation and dedication to their clients drew me to them and I knew that this would be the right place for me,” said Chalik. “I could not be more excited about the opportunity to manage WSHB’s new Philadelphia office!” WSHB also has offices located in Connecticut, Denver, Fresno, Glendale, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New Jersey, New York, Northern California, Orange County, Phoenix, Portland, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Seattle and Tampa. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

August 13, 2014 — Benjamin Katz – Bloomberg
SIG Plc (SHI) earnings surged 21 percent in the first half as the distributor of building products benefited from a strengthening recovery in the U.K. housing market as well as procurement savings. Underlying operating profit rose to 47.8 million pounds ($80 million) from 39.6 million pounds a year earlier, the Sheffield, England-based company said in a statement today. Sales in the U.K. and Ireland from continuing operations climbed 14 percent to 650 million pounds, offsetting flat revenue in continental Europe. “Trading conditions in the U.K. have continued to gather momentum, led by the revival in the housing market,” Chief Executive Officer Stuart Mitchell said in the statement. “The group’s first-half performance and progress on its strategic initiatives provide a strong base on which to achieve its full-year expectations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Katz, Bloomberg
Mr. Katz may be contacted at bkatz38@bloomberg.net

---

Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals

October 28, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
It’s a tactic as old as war itself. You can often gain a strategic advantage by selecting the location of battle. The same is true in litigation. But as the next case illustrates, when it comes to disputes between contractors (and design professionals), it isn’t always the combatants who dictate where the battle will be fought. Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. In Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc., Case No. A141010, California Court of Appeals for the First District (September 25, 2015), Texas architecture firm HKS Architects, Inc. (“HKS”) was hired to provide architectural services. HKS’ design service agreement included a Texas forum selection clause which provided:

As a condition precedent to the institution of any action [or] lawsuit all disputes shall be submitted to mediation” and “[a]ll claim , disputes, and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or related to the Agreement . . . be resolved by the . . . courts in . . . Texas.”

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

---

Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

July 31, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On the heels of a recent order regarding coverage under a Comprehensive General Insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”), builders should be very wary of CGL policies providing no coverage for property damage. On January 8, 2013, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mt. Hawley. The order states that the subject insurance policies issued by Mt. Hawley to Mountain View Homes II, LLC (“MV Homes”), the builder developer of the Creek Side at Parker development (the “Project”), did not provide coverage for any of the work performed by MV Homes or its subcontractors on the Project. MV Homes originally began construction on the Project in 2002 and completed construction in 2005. MV Homes was insured by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) and Mt. Hawley. In December 2008, Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Association, Inc. (“the HOA”) served notice on MV Homes. The HOA then instituted a construction defect lawsuit on June 1, 2009 against MV Homes and others. MV Homes initially demanded a defense and indemnity from National Fire, which provided a defense. Then, after two years, MV Homes demanded a defense and indemnity from Mt. Hawley in July 2011. Mt. Hawley denied coverage and did not provide a defense. The case was settled soon after, and National Fire reserved or assigned claims against Mt. Hawley. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

---

Sioux City Building Owners Sue Architect over Renovation Costs

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
According to the architects, it should have cost a few hundred thousand dollars to strengthen the floors of Sioux City’s Badgerow Building. Instead, the upgrades cost somewhere between $3 and $5 million, which Mako One, the builder’s owners, said would have dissuaded them from starting had they known. Mako is suing M Plus Architects, for this and for its recommendation that the building’s windows be changed. That change ran foul of historic preservation guidelines, and the windows will have to be replaced. M Plus is, in return, suing Mako One over $150,000 in unpaid bills. Meanwhile, a data center is moving in on the fourth floor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

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

---