SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Contractors Must Register with the L&I Prior to Offering or Performing Work, or Risk Having their Breach of Contract Case Dismissed

March 27, 2023 — Jill Guingcangco - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The Washington State Legislature has an interest in protecting the public from “unreliable, fraudulent, financially irresponsible, or incompetent contractors” (RCW 18.27.140), which is why contractors are required to register with the Department of Labor and Industries (“L&I”) before advertising, offering to do work, or performing any work as a contractor. RCW 18.27.020. Accordingly, if a contractor brings an action for the collection of compensation or sues for breach of contract for work they performed, that individual is required to allege and prove that, at the time they performed the work, they were a registered contractor. RCW 18.27.080. In Dobson v. Archibald,1 Dobson worked as a longshoreman, but also simultaneously performed home repair work for pay during her off time. Dobson never registered as a contractor with L&I. Dobson acquired customers for her home repair work through a referral process. Dobson was referred to Archibald through a mutual friend who Dobson performed some home repair work for. Archibald subsequently hired Dobson to refinish the hardwood floors in Archibald’s home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jill Guingcangco, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Guingcangco may be contacted at jill.guingcangco@acslawyers.com

---

A “Supplier to a Supplier” on a California Construction Project Sometimes Does Have a Right to a Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond Claim

October 01, 2014 — William L. Porter - The Porter Law Group
For purposes of seeking payment on a construction related project in the California construction industry, the proper legal classification of the party seeking payment is of key importance. Whether one in contract with a prime contractor is a subcontractor or a material supplier determines the availability for mechanics’ liens, stop payment notices and payment bond claims. Generally, those in contract with subcontractors have the ability to assert mechanics liens, stop payment notices and payment bond claims against the owner, general contractor and/or sureties. On the other hand, those who supply materials to material suppliers are generally not entitled to assert a mechanics lien, stop payment notice or payment bond claim. The “rule” has generally been stated as: “A supplier to a supplier has no lien rights.” However, this rule is not always true. The proper classification of an entity as either a subcontractor or a material supplier can be difficult. Simply because a prime contractor hires a licensed contractor to furnish labor, materials, equipment or services on a project does not mean that the party hired is actually a “subcontractor” as a matter of law. Conversely, even though a material supplier may not have a contractors’ license, he may still be classified as a subcontractor based on his scope of work. Based on recent case law, the method of determining whether an entity is a subcontractor or a material supplier has been clarified. The classification will depend on the scope of work that the hired party actually agreed to perform on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Mediating is Eye Opening

September 17, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As anyone that reads this construction law blog on any sort of regular basis knows, I am a big advocate for mediation in most cases (construction or otherwise). I took this truly to heard about four years ago when I decided to go through the training and mentorship to become a certified mediator here in Virginia. This training led to many opportunities to act as a mediator in the General District Courts here in Virginia and has recently given me the great privilege of helping parties that were not court referred resolve their disputes. I’ve discussed this first category of mediations at other times here at Musings, but it is the second category that has opened my eyes lately. The non-court referred mediations are those where the parties actively seek out the assistance of a mediator because they, like me, know that more often than not the control and ability to come to some form of negotiated solution (not to mention short circuiting the litigation process in a way that saves money) is a better way to go than to go through the expensive (though as a construction attorney I acknowledge sometimes necessary) process of litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

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

---

U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

June 11, 2014 — Earl Forte – White and Williams LLP
On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 12-1200, in which the court confirmed that the power of the nation’s bankruptcy courts to hear and decide cases involving state-created private rights in which the bankruptcy proof of claim process has not been directly invoked, is severely limited by Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The decision in Executive Benefits, while providing some clarity to practitioners and the public following the Court’s June 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), nevertheless will make a substantial portion of bankruptcy litigation matters more cumbersome and potentially more expensive to guide through the bankruptcy system. Clients and practitioners are best advised to hire knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the more complex procedural waters created by this decision. Although the Court in Executive Benefits did resolve a pending procedural question that had dogged practitioners since Stern was decided in 2011, the Court’s decision in Executive Benefits now makes it abundantly clear that many disputes that were previously heard and decided in the nation’s bankruptcy courts can no longer be decided there and must be submitted to the district courts for full de novo review and entry of a final judgment or order. It is difficult to see how this decision will not make bankruptcy litigation more cumbersome and expensive by adding an additional layer of judicial involvement to many matters, notably to fraudulent transfer and other avoidance “claw back” actions that historically have been decided in the bankruptcy courts and used famously in Madoff and other cases as an efficient device for creating value for creditors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Earl Forte, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Forte may be contacted at fortee@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

November 26, 2014 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
On November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond. Background In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

---

When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

June 28, 2021 — Robert S. Nobel & Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
New York recognizes that coverage under Workers’ Compensation (“WC”) and Employer’s Liability (“EL”) policies is generally unlimited. See Tully Const. Co. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 131 A.D.3d 598 (2d Dept. 2015); Oneida Ltd. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 263 A.D.2d 825, 694 N.Y.S.2d 221 (3d Dept. 1999). However, there is case holding that EL coverage may be limited in certain instances, such as when the primary EL carrier is listed as scheduled underlying insurance on an excess policy. In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 43 A.D.3d 666, 841 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1st Dept. 2007), an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation (“General”), a subcontractor on a construction project, sought to recover under New York’s Labor Law against the project’s owner and construction manager. Those defendants, in turn, brought a third-party action for indemnification against General. The employee’s personal injury claim was ultimately settled for $2.5 million. After the settlement, the excess insurer, Liberty, filed suit against the primary employer’s liability insurers, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and American International Group of Companies (collectively, “AIG”), which had refused to participate in the defense or settlement of the underlying personal injury litigation. Although the issue of whether the plaintiff in the underling action had sustained a “grave injury” (necessary to support the common law indemnity claim against General and trigger coverage under the Employer’s Lability policy) had not yet been determined, the court held that “[i]n the event the existence of a grave injury is proven, AIG’s liability will be limited to $1 million.” Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman and Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Peru’s Former President and His Wife to Stay in Jail After Losing Appeal

August 10, 2017 — John Quigley - Bloomberg
Former President Ollanta Humala and his wife Nadine Heredia will remain in jail while they are investigated for campaign donations involving Brazilian construction companies and the Venezuelan government, a Peruvian court said Friday. The couple, who were given pre-trial detention three weeks ago, had asked the appeal court judges to change the order for one requiring them not to leave the country and to appear regularly before the authorities. The couple turned themselves in on July 13 after Judge Richard Concepcion ordered 18 months of preventive detention for suspected money laundering. Concepcion had said there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and grounds to believe Humala and his wife would seek to obstruct the ongoing investigation by the Attorney General’s office. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Quigley, Bloomberg

---