Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

April 25, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

Contractual fairness ? it is part of my mantra. If you read the blog, you probably know that I preach brevity, balance and clarity in contracting. The State of Washington did well to finally eliminate something that has angered me for quite some time ? unfair indemnification.

One of my favorite construction contract revisions is mutual indemnification. Many “up the chain” contractors and owners are going to stick you with a unilateral indemnification clause that protects them for just about everything, including their own fumbling of a project. Adding mutual indemnification provides some balance, and keeps parties reliant upon each other for success on the job site.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract

October 18, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
How do you determine damages for a breach of a construction contract? If you are interested in pursing a breach of a construction contract action, this is something you NEED TO KNOW! The recent Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Cano, Inc. v. Judet, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2083b (Fla. 4th DCA 201) explains:

Where a contractor breaches a construction contract, and the owner sues for breach of contract and the cost to complete, the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the reasonable cost to perform the contract. See Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037, 1039-40 (Fla. 1982). In Grossman, the supreme court adopted subsection 346(1)(a) of the Restatement (First) of Contracts (1932), which it concluded was “designed to restore the injured party to the condition he would have been in if the contract had been performed.” Id. at 1039. In other words, the owner will obtain the benefit of his bargain [and this is known as benefit of the bargain damages]. But where there is a total breach of the contract as opposed to a partial breach, an injured party may elect to treat the contract as void and seek damages that will restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the contract or the party may seek the benefit of his bargain. See McCray v. Murray, 423 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

In Judet, an owner entered into a fixed price contract with a contractor to repair damage from a lightning strike. The contract amount was $300,000 payable in $30,000 installments. A few months after the contractor commenced performance, the owner terminated the contractor because the owner learned the contractor had not obtained required electrical and plumbing permits. At this time, the owner had paid the contractor $90,000. The contractor recorded a $40,000 lien for an amount it claimed it was owed and filed a lawsuit to foreclose its construction lien. The owner counter-sued the contractor to recover a claimed over-payment and a disgorgement of monies for unpermitted work. The owner was NOT claiming benefit of the bargain damages, but rather, damages for the contractor’s total breach “to restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the contract.” 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

McCarthy Workers Test Fall-Protection Harnesses Designed to Better Fit Women

November 09, 2020 — Corinne Grinapol - Engineering News-Record
At project sites in Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, 27 McCarthy Building Co. women employees are testing a harness better suited to fit a diversity of body types than the more ubiquitous harnesses generally available at construction sites. Reprinted courtesy of Corinne Grinapol, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

June 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
rime contracts typically contain a constructive change directive clause. A constructive change directive also goes by the acronym CCD (and for purposes of this article, such changes will be referred to as a CCD), however it can also be known as a Work Change Directive, Interim Directed Change, or Directed Change, depending on the type of contract beign utilized. An owner can order a CCD, versus issuing the contractor a formalized change order, as a mechanism to direct the prime contractor to perform work if there is a dispute as to contract amount, time, or scope. Just because an owner issues a CCD does not mean the owner is conceding that it owes the contractor a change order. Rather, the owner is ordering the CCD as a mechanism to keep the project moving forward notwithstanding a disagreement with the contractor as to the price or time impact. Standard form construction agreements such as the AIA, EJCDC, or ConsensusDocs, will have a standard provision dealing with change directives where the owner can order the contractor to proceed with work in the absence of a change order. In the federal government context, most construction contracts will contain a changes clause that authorizes the government to formally direct changes; and, there is authority for contractors to equitably pursue a constructive change based on certain directives or instructions issued by the government. Naturally, from the contractor’s perspective, this CCD provision is an important consideration as it could likely require the contractor to finance a change to the owner’s project, particularly if there is a scope dispute where the owner does not believe the contractor is entitled to any change order. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

April 03, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In a brief opinion, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's denial of coverage for construction defects. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680 (2nd Cir. March 21, 2013). The insured, R.I. Pools, employed outside companies to supply concrete and to shoot the concrete into the ground. During the summer of 2006, it obtained its concrete from one subcontractor and used another to shoot the concrete. In 2009, nineteen customers of R.I. Pools from 2006 complained damage to their pools, including cracking, flaking, and deteriorating concrete. Scottsdale sought a declaratory judgment against R.I. Pools that it had no obligations under the policy to defend or indemnify for claims related to cracks in the pools. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

April 20, 2017 — JT Long - Engineering News-Record
The first wave of new road projects could go out at the beginning of 2018 now that the California legislature has approved $52.4 billion over 10 years from a new 12-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. SB-1 was approved late in the evening on April 6; by April 7, the California Dept. of Transportation was already working on a list of projects that could start construction by summer of 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of JT Long, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause

January 11, 2021 — Kevin C. Cottone, Robert Wright, & Monica Doss - White and Williams LLP
Where an initial tortfeasor settles in a successive negligence case, the non-settling tortfeasors do not get a credit at trial, says the New Jersey Appellate Division. The court held in Glassman v. Friedel [1], that non-settling successive tortfeasors are not entitled to a pro tanto credit after the initial tortfeasor settles and its negligence is undetermined. Rather, successive tortfeasors have the burden at trial to demonstrate that (1) the initial tortfeasor was negligent, and (2) the initial tortfeasor’s negligence was the proximate cause of the second event. In Glassman, the plaintiff, as executor of his deceased wife’s estate, sued a restaurant and property owner of the site where his wife fell and fractured her ankle. Afterwards, the plaintiff added defendants including the doctors and the medical center that cared for his wife after she fractured her ankle. The plaintiff alleged that they had been negligent during his wife’s surgery, which led to postoperative complications and injuries to his wife’s leg, ultimately resulting in a fatal pulmonary embolism. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin C. Cottone, White and Williams LLP, Robert Wright, White and Williams LLP and Monica Doss, White and Williams LLP Mr. Cottone may be contacted at cottonek@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Wright may be contacted at wrightr@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Doss may be contacted at dossm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

May 24, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Melissa Dewey Brumback. Melissa is a construction law attorney with Ragsdale Liggett in Raleigh, North Carolina. Aside from the fact that she is a UNC grad and fan, she’s okay! In 2017, as it does every ten years, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) updated most of its standard form contract documents, including the A201 General Conditions. This cycle, the contract changes are evolutionary in nature, not revolutionary. Even so, it is crucial to know the changes to avoid making a fatal mistake that could cost you money on a construction project. In reverse order, the top 10 changes you need to know include: # 10: Differing Site Conditions Prior editions of the A201 provided that upon encountering differing site conditions, the Contractor was to promptly provide notice to the Owner and Architect, before the conditions are disturbed, and in no event later than 21 days after the conditions were first observed. A201–2017 shortens the time for notice from 21 to 14 days. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES