SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Lien Release Bonds – Remove Liens, But Not All Liability

February 20, 2023 — Mia Hughes - ConsensusDocs
Lien Release Bonds – Remove Liens, But Not All Liability Among owners and contractors, payment and performance bonds are commonly used together in an effort to mitigate future risk against derivative subcontractor claims. But what happens when despite the effort to mitigate risk, a derivative claimant nevertheless files a mechanics’ lien on the owner’s real property? Not all hope is lost. There is another classification of bond, a “lien release bond”—also commonly referred to as an indemnity bond or a mechanics’ lien bond—which provides protections for real property after a mechanics’ lien has already been filed. The purpose of a lien release bond is to remove claims against the relevant real property. Notably, a lien release bond does not necessarily eliminate all liability of an owner or a general contractor. In number of states, an owner or a general contractor can be held personally liable for derivative claims despite a valid lien release bond. What is a Lien Release Bond? A lien release bond is a specific type of surety bond that removes an existing mechanics’ lien from an owner’s real property. In an effort to protect real property, an owner, or a general contractor, can obtain a lien release bond that will substitute or take the place of a mechanics’ lien. In the event a lien claimant files suit on the mechanics’ lien and seeks to collect on their claim, any proceeds recovered will come from the lien release bond rather than proceeds from the sale or foreclosure of the real property. The threat of mechanics’ liens is always present on a construction project— it is estimated that over 60,000 mechanics liens were filed in 2021 alone. Lien release bonds are an added layer of protection for an owner’s real property against a pending mechanics’ lien. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mia Hughes, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Hughes may be contacted at mhughes@joneswalker.com

---

There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract

February 28, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When an opinion in a case starts with, “Unlike some motions, not even the most ingenious lawyers could make this one complicated,” you know you are in for an interesting read. This was how the opinion started in U.S. f/u/b/o Hambric Steel and Fabrication, Inc. v. Leebcor Services, LLC, 2022 WL 345636 (M.D. GA. 2022), which concerns a Miller Act payment bond dispute between a subcontractor and prime contractor on a federal construction project. As demonstrated below, the moral of this case is in fact simple. Read what you sign BEFORE you sign! No ifs, ands, or buts. Failure to do so will garner very little sympathy. This case dealt with a prime contractor arguing that the subcontractor pulled the wool over its eyes by surreptitiously altering the final negotiated redlined contract between the parties. In particular, the prime contractor claimed that the dispute resolution provision was supposed to include a Virginia venue provision. However, the subcontractor “fraudulently” changed this provision to make it a Georgia venue provision after the final contract had been agreed to during the negotiation. Yet, it is undisputed that the executed contract between the parties included a Georgia venue provision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Builders Association Seeks to Cut Down Grassroots Green Building Program (Guest Post)

October 04, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s year end Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome Michael Anschel. Michael is the owner of Otogawa-Anschel Design-Build, a member of BATC, lead the development of and serves as a board member to MN GreenStar, the CEO of Verified Green, Inc., and writes the green blog for Remodeling Magazine Online. If you have been following the sad state of affairs in Minnesota recently (no not the elections) you might be scratching a bald spot on your head in amazement. To my knowledge it is the only state in which the local builders association [ www.batconline.org ] has actually sued the local Green building program (MN GreenStar [ www.mngreenstar.org ]; going as far as filing a restraining order to keep them from certifying any new homes in the state. This is, in my opinion, a tragic move in the wrong direction for everyone; builders and homeowners alike. The builders group widely know for The Parade of Homes claims to have no interest in using the program or the brand MN GreenStar, so why seek to shut the program down? Even the lawyers have been scratching their heads trying to make sense of this bizarre and highly aggressive move. And things just get more bizarre from there. 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

---

Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

November 12, 2019 — Frank Ingham - Colorado Construction Litigation
The Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019). In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

---

Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Negligence Claim Against Building Company Owner, Individually

October 20, 2016 — Michael L. DeBona – The Subrogation Strategist
In Beaufort Builders, Inc. v. White Plains Church Ministries, Inc., 783 S.E.2d 35 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina addressed whether the economic loss rule barred the negligence claim of White Plains Church Ministries, Inc. (White Plains) against Charles F. Cherry (Cherry), the owner of Beaufort Builders, Inc. (Beaufort Builders). The court held that, because the economic loss rule would bar White Plains’ negligence claims against Beaufort Builders, White Plains could not pursue a third-party negligence claim against Cherry, individually. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

---

New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

January 21, 2019 — Timothy Carroll & Anthony Miscioscia - White and Williams
A recent opinion by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (Second Department) highlights the potential risks for an insurer leaving an insured unrepresented while the insurer pursues other parties or insurers who may be primarily responsible for defending the insured. In refusing to overturn a default judgment entered against an insured while its insurer knew that a complaint had been filed but refused to defend, the New York court’s decision raises questions about how claims adjusters are to effectively manage new claims to prevent a default judgment being entered against the insured, while at the same time ensuring that the appropriate party or insurance company handles the insured’s defense. In Kaung Hea Lee v. 354 Management Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7749 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2018) (354 Management) the underlying plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendant insured due to its failure to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs then moved to determine the extent of damages to which they were entitled by virtue of the default judgment. The defendant opposed that motion, relying on an affidavit from a senior liability claims adjuster employed by the defendant’s insurer. “In the affidavit, the claim adjuster stated that she did not assign an attorney to answer the complaint because the codefendant . . . was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant [insured], and she had been attempting to have either [the codefendant] or its insurer provide an attorney” for the defendant. However, it was determined that the claims adjuster knew about the plaintiffs’ complaint two weeks after the plaintiffs served it on the defendant and months before the plaintiffs moved for default judgment. Despite this knowledge, the defendant’s insurer did not provide a defense or, apparently, obtain an extension of time to respond to the complaint, which led to the default judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

December 20, 2021 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Last year, I posted regarding the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Woodbridge II, which concluded that the “adverse use” element for prescriptive easement claims only requires the claimant to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2. Thus, Woodbridge II concluded, the claimants acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. Id. That decision was up for review by the Colorado Supreme Court at the time of my prior post. It has now been affirmed, thereby settling an arguable appellate decision split created by Woodbridge II. See Lo Viento Blanco, LLC v. Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2021 CO 56 (“Woodbridge”). “Like the division below, and for much the same reasons,” the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed in Woodbridge “that under Colorado law, a claimant’s acknowledgement or recognition of the owner’s title during the claimant’s asserted prescriptive period does not interrupt the prescriptive use or undermine the claimant’s adverse use.” Woodbridge, ¶ 2. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Gabriel’s opinion agreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning “that although Woodbridge recognized that it did not hold title, no evidence indicated that it had acted in subordination to the owner’s title.” Id. ¶ at 13. The Court further agreed with Woodbridge II’srejection of Lo Viento’s “permissive use” argument because “the permission offered … was conditional and Woodbridge never agreed to any of the conditions set forth therein.” Id. On that basis, Woodbridge confirmed that “a claimant seeking to establish a prescriptive easement need not show that it asserted exclusive ownership of the property during the prescriptive period,” but only “that its use was without permission or otherwise unauthorized and that it interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Id. at ¶ 23. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

---

Heathrow Tempts Runway Opponents With $1,200 Christmas Sweetener

December 15, 2016 — Christopher Jasper – Bloomberg
Heathrow Airport Ltd. will offer hundreds of homeowners a 1,000-pound ($1,200) festive sweetener to participate in environmental studies vital to expediting planning for its controversial 16 billion-pound third runway. The owners of houses and farmland on which the new landing strip is due to be built will qualify for the payment in return for agreeing to a handful of visits over about two years, Heathrow Chief Executive Officer John Holland-Kaye said in an interview. The surveys are required to establish the site’s wildlife value. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Jasper, Bloomberg

---