Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Just Because You Allege There Was an Oral Contract Doesn’t Mean You’re Off the Hook for Attorneys’ Fees if you Lose

March 28, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
There’s certain things in life you shouldn’t mix. Like drinking and driving. Bleach and ammonia. Triple dog dares and frozen poles. And angry lawyers and litigation. In Spahn v. Richards, Case No. A159495 (November 30, 2021), angry lawyer Jeffrey Spahn sued general contractor Dan Richards claiming that Richards orally agreed to build Spahn’s million dollar plus house for $515,000. Not only did Spahn not recover anything from Richards, he ended up owing Richards $239,171 in attorney’s fees and costs, after he denied a request for admission asking that he admit that there was no oral contract. The Spahn Case In 2017, Spahn filed suit against Richards for breach of oral contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. According to Spahn, he met Richards in June 2015 and the two reached an agreement whereby Richards agreed to demolish Spahn’s house for $12,500 and build a new one for $515,000. Further according to Spahn, Richards agreed to this “fixed price” “oral contract” in June 2015, and then, on July 1, 2015, Richards “confirmed and agreed that he would perform the construction project” for $515,000 and would complete construction by May 2016. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Force Majeure, Construction Delays, Labor Shortages and COVID-19

April 06, 2020 — Elizabeth J. Dye - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The global effect of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is still unknown, and the progress of many large-scale construction projects has been affected by “Shelter in Place” orders, although some states and localities have classified construction projects as “essential.” Just last Friday, New York shut down all construction, with few exceptions. Several states have enacted gathering bans of all sizes (including Michigan, Oregon, New Mexico, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, California) and more people are likely to be quarantined as widespread testing becomes available. These decisions will undoubtedly affect the supply of materials and labor necessary for construction projects. Officials have turned to increasingly disruptive and measures to control the spread of the virus in addition to event prohibitions and school closures, including restricting people to their homes, and closing businesses that are not “essential.” While many companies have adopted mandatory telecommuting, this is an impossibility on the construction sites. Eventually, supply and labor shortages due to governmental restrictions or quarantines will affect the critical path of construction projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elizabeth J. Dye, Pillsbury
Ms. Dye may be contacted at elizabeth.dye@pillsburylaw.com

Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million

October 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Construction Lawyers, LLP has announced that it has settled two Florida construction defect suits, both of which were filed by condominium associations. The first of these involved the Estates at Park Central Condominium Association, a 244-unit condominium complex in Orlando Florida. The condominium association alleged leaks into balconies and garages, and deficiencies in stucco application. After nearly three years since the filing of the lawsuit, and only weeks before the trial was to begin, the case was settled for $2 million. The second case has also spent the last three years in mediation, however its trial date was further away. The Grand Venezia Condominium Owners Association alleged construction defects including leaking roofs and windows, and improperly installed stucco, leading to dry rot and water damage. The condominium community comprises 336 units in Clearwater, Florida and the units were originally built as apartments. Here, the settlement with the contractor was for $2.75 million. A lawsuit against the developer continues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Homeowner Alleges Pool Construction Is Defective

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Texas man is suing the contractor who built his pool alleging that within months of construction, the pool began to crack and leak water. According to the lawsuit from Larry Merendino, when the concrete contractor, PC Construction, removed some concrete, they found PVC joints that were not glued properly and were leaking. Mr. Merendino is suing the company and five other firms, claiming that the construction of his pool was negligent and that the companies operated by deceptive trade practices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

May 16, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. 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

Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got

November 27, 2013 — Bret Cogdill — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
A recent U.S. District Court case in Colorado highlighted the importance for an insured to read and understand the terms of its insurance policy. The case 2-BT, LLC v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group, LLC, Civil Action No. 12CV02167PAB, was a controversy between an insured’s expectations for coverage, and the terms and exclusions of the insurance policy. 2-BT is a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (“HVAC”) contractor, which utilizes soldering devices and heat sources among other tools for its trade. 2-BT needed liability insurance to cover its work, and found a provider, Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group, LLC (“PCIC”). 2-BT read PCIC’s online materials, which stated “PCIC’s personalized underwriting process allows us to tailor coverage to properly outfit the contractor with excellent coverage and rates.” 2-BT filled out a policy application, which included a description of the type of HVAC work it performs, initialed several sections, and signed it. One of the initialed paragraphs on the application, “Policy Exclusions,” stated that damages arising from “fungi/bacteria,” “open flame,” and “use of heating devices,” was not covered. PCIC issued a policy to 2-BT, which included a section titled, “Additional Exclusions” that excluded coverage for mold and damage related to heating elements among others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bret Cogdill
Bret Cogdill can be contacted at cogdill@hhmrlaw.com

The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations

February 15, 2021 — Gerard J. Onorata - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The success of general contractors in completing a construction project is often dependent upon the performance of their subcontractors. General contractors have frequently said exactly this. Traditionally, the key subcontractors on a project are the electrical, plumbing, HVAC and structural steel subs. Due to the fundamental nature of the work performed by these trades, the risk of defaulting and terminating one or more of them is likely to have a substantial impact on the project, more so than with the trade contractors that perform their work after a building is made weather tight (i.e., drywall, tile, painting). Most general contractors have, over a period of years, established longstanding relationships with certain subcontractors that they have come to depend upon. The risk of having to default and terminate one of these subs is minimal. Nevertheless, there will inevitably arise occasions when even a once reliable subcontractor fails to perform and it becomes necessary to invoke the remedies of default and termination. Areas ripe for controversy with subcontractors that often can lead to default and termination often involve disputes over change orders and the scope of work, the installation of defective work and the back-charges that ensue therefrom, and, to a lesser extent, conflicts that arise from ambiguous plans and specifications and the extra work and delays caused by the discovery of unforeseen site conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Judge Gleuda E. Edmonds, a magistrate judge in the United States District Court of Arizona issued a ruling in Guadiana v. State Farm on January 25, 2012. Judge Edmonds recommended a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Ms. Guandiana’s home had water damage due to pluming leaks in September 2004. She was informed that polybutylene pluming in her house could not be repaired in parts “it must be completely replaced.” She had had the plumbing replaced. State Farm denied her claim, arguing that “the tear-out provision did not cover the cost of accessing and replacing those pipes that were not leaking.”

In September 2007, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss. The court rejected this motion, stating that “If Guadiana can establish as a matter of fact that the system that caused the covered loss included all the pipes in her house and it was necessary to replace all the pipes to repair that system, State Farm is obligated to pay the tear-out costs necessary to replace all the pipes, even those not leaking.”

In March 2009, State Farm filed for summary judgment, which the court granted. State Farm argued that “the tear-out provision only applied to ‘repair’ and not ‘replace’ the system that caused the covered leak.” As for the rest of the piping, State Farm argued that “the policy does not cover defective materials.”

In December 2011, Ms. Guadiana filed for summary judgment, asking the court to determine that “the policy ‘covers tear-out costs necessary to adequately repair the plumbing system, even if an adequate repair requires replacing all or part of the system.”

In her ruling, Judge Edmonds noted that Ms. Guadiana’s claim is that “the water damage is a covered loss and she is entitled to tear-out costs necessary to repair the pluming system that caused that covered loss.” She rejected State Farm’s claim that it was not obligated to replace presumably defective pipes. Further, she rejected State Farm’s argument that they were only responsible for the leaking portion, noting “Guadiana intends to prove at trial that this is an unusual case where repair of her plumbing system requires replacement of all the PB plumbing.”

Judge Edmonds concluded by directing the District Court to interpret the tear out issue as “the tear-out provision in State Farm’s policy requires State Farm to pay all tear-out costs necessary to repair the plumbing system (that caused the covered loss) even if repair of the system requires accessing more than the leaking portion of the system.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES