Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Unjust Enrichment and Express Contract Don’t Mix

August 23, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I am a huge fan of clearly written construction contracts. Virginia state and federal courts will interpret contract provisions as written and will seek to enforce all of those terms where possible. Where the contract is ambiguous, we construction attorneys make money and the courts are forced to make decisions that the parties may not like. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court highlights the ways in which a clear contract affects the claims that can be brought and limits the scope of possible litigation. In First Call Environmental LLC v. Murphy Oil USA LLC, the Court looked at a relatively typical Owner, Contractor, Subcontractor set of agreements. In this matter, Murphy Oil entered a contract with National Rapid Response, Inc. (“NRR”) whereby NRR would provide emergency and environmental management and waste disposal services to Murphy Oil. NRR then subcontracted with the Plaintiff First Call to perform the services for Murphy Oil. First Call filed suit against Murphy Oil alleging two counts: breach of contract (based on a third-party beneficiary theory), and unjust enrichment. 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

JAMS Announces Updated Construction Rules

June 21, 2021 — JAMS
Irvine, Calif. – JAMS, the largest private provider of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services worldwide, is pleased to announce it has revised and updated its Construction Arbitration Rules & Procedures and Expedited Construction Arbitration Rules & Procedures, effective June 1. These Rules were updated to reflect the latest developments and trends in construction arbitration. In response to the transition to virtual and hybrid proceedings, Rule 22 makes explicit the arbitrator’s full authority to conduct the hearing in person, virtually or in a combined form, as well as with participants in more than one geographic location. To support access to case documents throughout the proceedings, Rule 8 aligns electronic filing and service with the functionality of JAMS Access, a centralized, secure online case management platform. Additional rules were created or revised to clarify and strengthen the authority of the arbitrator. Key changes include allowing an arbitrator to withhold approval of any intended change in party representation that could compromise the proceedings or the final award, to set a hearing without consulting a party that he or she reasonably believes will not participate and to permit a party to file a motion for summary disposition of a claim if the arbitrator believes that party has demonstrated the motion is likely to succeed. About JAMS – Local Solutions. Global Reach. Founded in 1979, JAMS is the largest private provider of alternative dispute resolution services worldwide. JAMS successfully resolves and manages business and legal disputes by providing efficient, cost-effective and impartial ways to overcome barriers at any stage of conflict. JAMS offers customized in-person, virtual and hybrid resolution services locally and globally through a combination of industry-specific experience, first-class client service, the latest technology and highly trained mediators and arbitrators. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of JAMS

Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Mark Wiechnik, a litigation partner at Herrick, Feinstein LLP, has started a seven-part series in which he looks at the misconceptions homeowner board members have when they’re facing construction defect lawsuits. He opens by setting the scene of unit owners “complaining of leaks, roof problems, mold and myriad of other issues”, but conflicting views on what to do about them. In his series, he looks at some of the most common mistaken assumptions and discusses how board members should respond. Wiechnik’s first misconception examined is the claim that “we should file a homeowners warranty claim right away!” He notes that this is “rarely a good idea,” since if the building is more than two years old, the warranty will only be worthwhile if the building is near collapse. He also notes that once you file a warranty claim, “the association is precluded from ever filing a lawsuit on that issue.” Additionally, Wiechnik points out that filing a warranty claim puts everything into the hands of an arbitrator, who gets control of the whole process and whose decision is final, whether the association is happy with the results. Further, he notes, “the program favors builders and contractors over the homeowners.” In his second section, he looks at the fears that if the developer is bankrupt, there is no point is suing. Here he notes that the money for repairs does not come from the developer, but “from the developer’s and subcontractor’s insurance carriers.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

August 24, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court denied two plaintiffs' claims for breach of the policy and for bad faith because they were not insureds under the policy. Tu v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115200 (N.D. Calif. July 24, 2017). Dongbu, a Hawaii insurance company, issued a two-year policy to Plaintiff Ken Tu for his business. He was the only named insured under the policy. The waste system at Plaintiffs' restaurant failed, causing fumes to impact neighboring tenants and waste to contaminate the underlying soil. Plaintiffs were forced to close the restaurant. A claim was tendered for damage and repair, loss of business income, and other insured losses. Dongbu denied coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

July 30, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC

July 02, 2018 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Virtual reality opens new perspectives for communication and customer involvement in construction. Sweco, Varjo, and Teatime Research are together exploring the possibilities of VR using state-of-the-art technology. “I think that the use of VR in construction is still at a visionary stage and useful practical applications are rare,” says Niina Jaatinen, Service Manager at Sweco. “When we learned about Varjo’s exceptional technology, we thought that maybe it’s now time to start developing the really useful apps customers would yearn for.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations

May 10, 2022 — Joneis M. Phan & Sarah K. Bloom - ConsensusDocs
Federal contractors have faced unprecedented challenges performing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional costs have included delays and inefficiencies, site closures, quarantines, unavailability of supplies and materials, and full shutdowns of subcontractor operations. For contractors performing under fixed price contracts, the cost impact of COVID-19 was likely severe. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) recognizes “epidemics” as a force majeure event that may excuse non-performance. Many federal contracts include some version of the Default clause, which prevents the government from terminating a contractor for default due to impacts of force majeure events that are beyond a contractor’s control, such as an epidemic. See, e.g., FAR 52.249-10. See also Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Dep’t of State, CBCA No. 5683 (Apr. 20. 2020). The Default clause, however, operates as a shield from liability, not a sword authorizing recovery. Contractors are now left wondering whether any avenue exists to recover additional costs incurred after performing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to a likely influx of claims and requests for equitable adjustment due to COVID-19 impacts, the federal government largely took the position that contractors were entitled to extensions of time, but not to additional costs. This article explores the avenues that may be available for contractors to recover costs for performing during a force majeure event that would otherwise be non-compensable. Reprinted courtesy of Joneis M. Phan, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs and Sarah K. Bloom, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs). Mr. Phan may be contacted at jphan@watttieder.com Ms. Bloom may be contacted at sbloom@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Savannah Homeowners Win Sizable Judgment in Mold Case against HVAC Contractor

August 10, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Two Savannah homeowners filed a complaint against a local air conditioning contractor and its insurer, asserting claims of professional negligence and fraud. The couple alleged that in March 2009, the contractor replaced the duct system of their home’s air conditioning unit. The following June, the couple discovered mold growth on the vent covers. They hired an independent contractor who upon inspection concluded that the duct system, which contained holes, gaps, loose connections and insufficient mastic, had been defectively installed in violation of the applicable city ordinances, resulting in excessive moisture and mold contamination throughout the residence. The homeowners alleged that they grew ill with respiratory problems as a result and were subsequently forced to vacate the residence and abandon their personal belongings. Their complaint sought to recover repair costs, moving costs, expenses associated with rental property, costs of living, costs related to the replacement of personal property, medical expenses, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES