Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Washington Court Denies Subcontractor’s Claim Based on Contractual Change and Notice Provisions

January 29, 2024 — Wendy Rosenstein - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The recent unpublished case, Cascade Civil Construction, LLC v. Jackson Dean Construction, Inc., et al.,[1] provides a legal justification for contractors to require a directive or change order in advance of performing changed work—thereby preventing the party who requested the changed work from later arguing that notice provisions were not complied with. In the case, Jackson Dean, the prime contractor, hired Cascade to perform excavation work on a project to build a new Costco Corporate headquarters. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and other issues, Jackson Dean directed resequencing, which required Cascade to perform excavation concurrent to dewatering. Jackson Dean also required deeper-than-planned excavation under one of the buildings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wendy Rosenstein, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Rosenstein may be contacted at wendy.rosenstein@acslawyers.com

Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits

April 17, 2019 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
Duke Energy Progress said April 11 it will appeal the North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality’s order issued earlier this month to excavate nine remaining large coal ash pits at six power plants in the state and move ash to lined landfills; the firm claims the new mandate at sites previously deemed low-risk will cost up to $5 billion to implement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

January 10, 2018 — Richard W. Brown - SDV Blog
Argument before the Court of Appeals has now been scheduled for February 7, 2018, in Gilbane Building Co. v. St. Paul Insurance, with a long anticipated decision by New York’s highest court to be issued shortly thereafter. In its September 18, 2017 edition, Law360.com highlighted three major cases with significant implications on insurance coverage that will soon be decided by the New York Court of Appeals. Gilbane presents an opportunity for the Court to address the growing number of divergent decisions regarding the prerequisites for qualifying as an additional insured, as it considers an Appellate Division’s holding that a construction manager is not entitled to coverage as an additional insured under a contractor’s policy because the two companies did not enter into a direct contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com

West Virginia Wild: Crews Carve Out Corridor H Through the Appalachian Mountains

May 08, 2023 — Aileen Cho - Engineering News-Record
When crews with Kokosing Construction Co. began a $209-million design-build contract—the largest of its kind in West Virginia—in 2015, they first had to build roads in order to build the actual road called Corridor H. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ambush Elections are Here—Are You Ready?

May 07, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
On April 14, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board’s new election rule went into effect. The new rule, which shortens the time frame for union elections, will make it easier for unions to organize. Employers must get prepared now, not when they hear about an election. As the NLRB Members who dissented from the final rule noted:

"The Final Rule has become the Mount Everest of regulations: Massive in scale and unforgiving in its effect. Very few people will have the endurance to read the Final Rule in its entirety."

Within 2 business days after service of the Notice of the Pre-Election Hearing, the employer must post a Notice of Petition for Election. The employer must also distribute the notice via e-mail if the employer customarily communicates with employees via e-mail.
A Pre-Election hearing will be scheduled within 8 days from the Notice.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Patti Santelle Honored by Rutgers School of Law with Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award

March 01, 2021 — Patricia Santelle - White and Williams
White and Williams is proud to announce that Patti Santelle, Chair Emeritus, will be honored by the Rutgers School of Law-Camden Alumni Association with the 2020 Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award. The Armitage Award was established in 1983 in memory of Armitage, who, with a group of interested citizens, founded both the South Jersey Law School in 1926 and its companion College of South Jersey in 1927. Past recipients include governors, member of Congress, state and federal judges, and industry leaders. Patti, a 1985 graduate, is a Co-Chair of the Executive Committee of the newly established Rutgers Law Alumnae Network and a Past Chancellor and long-time member of the Board of the Rutgers-Camden Law Alumni Association. While in law school, she was President of the Student Bar Association, winner of the Hunter Advanced Moot Court Competition and a member of the National Moot Court Team. In 2010, Patti received the Scarlet Oak Meritorious Service Award from Rutgers University for her contributions as an alumni leader and student mentor at the law school. For the past seven years, she served as the Managing Partner and Chair of the Executive Committee at White and Williams, the first woman in the firm’s history and in the City of Philadelphia to serve in that role in a major law firm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patricia Santelle, White and Williams
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com

Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

November 26, 2014 — Casey J. Quinn - Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
In Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys’ fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder. The first arises during the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 40 process (Nevada’s Right to Repair law). After a builder receives notice of construction defects, it is required to provide the claimant with a written response to each defect, which may include a proposal for monetary compensation (including contribution from a subcontractor, supplier, or design professional). See NRS 40.6472. If a claimant unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer of settlement included in the response and decides to commence litigation, the court may deny the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and award attorneys’ fees and costs to the builder. See NRS 40.650. Thus, by including a reasonable offer of monetary compensation in a Chapter 40 response, a builder could possibly avoid paying any fees and costs and even recover its own fees in defending against the claim. A second method for shifting fees and costs is through a written offer of judgment (OOJ). See NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. Not limited solely to construction defect matters, an OOJ is a useful tool in all kinds of litigation. OOJs are designed to facilitate and encourage pre-trial settlement by incentivizing parties to make reasonable settlement offers that—when unreasonably rejected—have the consequence of shifting the right to recover attorneys’ fees. Basically, when a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court cannot award any attorneys’ fees and costs to the rejecting party and may award attorneys’ fees incurred from the date of the offer to the entry of judgment, as well as all reasonable costs, to the party who made the offer. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that when a homeowner rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, it can wipe out that homeowner’s right to Chapter 40 fees and costs. See Gunderson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 27, 2014). In other words, “While NRS Chapter 40 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees proximately caused by a construction defect, it does not guarantee it.” Id. Because of the potentially harsh consequences of rejecting an OOJ, there are specific requirements that must be met to trigger them. An offer of judgment must be made in writing, can be made at any time at least 10 days before trial, and is irrevocable for 10 days with no provision for withdrawal before the 10 days expire. See Nava v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 396, 46 P.3d 60 (2002). A party may make successive offers of judgment, but the most recent offer extinguishes previous offers and is controlling for determining the date from which attorneys’ fees may be awarded. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006). In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the purpose of OOJs are not to cause plaintiffs to unfairly forego legitimate claims. However, when a valid offer of judgment is made, the offer is rejected, and the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, a court must evaluate whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good faith; whether the offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and whether the fees sought by the offer are reasonable and justified. “After weighing the foregoing factors, the district judge may, where warranted, award up to the full amount of fees requested.” Id. It is worth noting that in Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that when a party rejects a reasonable OOJ and is foreclosed from recovering fees and costs, the party is likewise foreclosed from an award of fees and costs under Chapter 40. This means that even if a builder fails to include a monetary settlement offer as part of a Chapter 40 response, it may still avoid paying the claimant’s fees and costs with a reasonable and timely OOJ. Finally, it is important to remember that OOJs are a powerful tool that can cut both ways. If an OOJ is not reasonable and timely, or if it fails to contemplate all the potential recovery of an offeree, the OOJ may have no effect on the outcome of a case. Moreover, if a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, that party could end up paying the offeror’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer. Given this powerful impact, OOJs should be an integral part of pre-litigation planning and overall litigation strategy. About the Author Casey J. Quinn is an associate in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial, construction, and insurance litigation and appellate work. Casey can be reached by email at Casey.Quinn@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Repeal Process for Rejected Superstorm Sandy Grant Applications

February 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Even though it’s been revealed that “faulty data” was used to reject many New Jersey recovery grants for victims of Superstorm Sandy, the state has announced that it’s too late to appeal, according to The Wall Street Journal. “The applicants were informed by letter that they weren't eligible,” state officials told The Wall Street Journal, “and it should have been clear that they needed to appeal last year, so the application process won't be reopened.” The majority of the rejected applicants that did appeal within the open period were found to be eligible for the grant: “Nearly 80% of people who appealed their rejections ended up winning their cases, according to data released by the Fair Share Housing Center, a public-interest law firm critical of the Christie administration. And of the 8,007 applicants rejected from both programs, 5,583 didn't appeal, or 70%, according to Fair Share Housing Center's analysis.” U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell called for “an independent monitor” to be “appointed to oversee the state’s storm spending ‘to ensure there isn’t further mismanagement.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES