Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

July 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Acting on the case of Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona’s eight-year statute of repose applies. The case was referred to the court by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which had asked for a clarification of Arizona law. The case focused on three questions:

1. Does the filing of a motion for class certification in an Arizona court toll the statute of limitations for individuals, who are included within the class, to file individual causes of action involving the same defendants and the same subject matter?2. If so, does this class-action tolling doctrine apply to statutes of repose, and more specifically, to the statute of repose for construction defects set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 12-552?3. If the doctrine applies to statutes of repose, and specifically § 12-552, may a court weigh the equities of the case in determining whether, and to what extent, an action is tolled?

The litigation at hand has a lengthy history, starting with a case referred to as “Hoffman” in 2003. The Albano plaintiffs were not able to join in Hoffman, and they filed their own lawsuit in 2006. An additional lawsuit was filed by the Albano plaintiffs in 2007. The courts decided that the Albano plaintiffs’ lawsuit was untimely.

The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the statute of repose was the appropriate standard for this case. They noted that “the eight-year statute of repose period began to run on November 6, 1997, the date of the Town of Gilbert’s final inspection. Albano II was filed on November 5, 2007.”

The court found that the plaintiffs had waited too long for start their suit. As a result, they found it unnecessary to answer the first or third questions. Justice A. John Pelander of the Arizona Supreme Court wrote the opinion, dated June 30, 2011.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

October 05, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I’ve discussed the continuing litigation between White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas, Inc. previously here at Construction Law Musings because the case was another reminder that your construction contract terms matter and will be interpreted strictly here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The prior opinion in this case from the Eastern District of Virginia court the Court considered the applicability of a liquidated damages provision. In the latest opinion from the Court (PDF) the Court looked at when and how any liquidated damages would be calculated. In its June 22, 2020 opinion, the Court put the issue as follows:

White Oak’s motion for partial summary judgment presents a narrow issue: whether courts may consider the damages actually sustained by a party as a result of a contract breach when deciding if liquidated damages required by a contract “grossly exceed” a party’s actual damages.

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

Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673

March 22, 2017 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
On October 25, 2016, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) and the U.S. Department of Labor implemented former President Obama’s Executive Order 13673: “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” rules. The rules became effective on October 25, 2016 and fundamentally altered the way federal contractors and subcontractors will need to handle and resolve employment and labor claims, as well as compliance issues involving their entire workforce. The final rules can also result in otherwise-capable companies being “blacklisted” and effectively barred from federal contracts and subcontracts based on labor and employment law violations related or unrelated to prior or current federal contract performance. The centerpiece of the new regulatory scheme was the new disclosure and responsibility requirements. Contractors and subcontractors needed to disclose all “labor law decisions” that they had during the three years (prior to bid submission) as part of the process of applying for a new federal contract or subcontract. If a contractor or subcontractor has too many “labor law decisions” to report or the few it has are too severe, pervasive, repeated, or willful in the eyes of the government “experts,” the company could be deemed “non-responsible” and denied a contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

What You Need to Know About CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulations

May 20, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In November 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved amendments to . . . wait for it . . . its “In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleet” regulations – that enough hyphens for you – which took effect on January 1, 2024. The purpose of the regulations is to reduce emissions from off-road equipment, many of which are used by construction contractors, such as forklifts, bulldozers, cranes and excavators. Are these new regulations? Yes and no. CARB has regulated in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles since 2008 and has periodically amended these regulations. The most recent amendments take effect on January 1, 2024. What vehicles do the regulations apply to? The regulations apply to two classes of vehicles (1) self-propelled off-road diesel-fueled vehicles of 25 horsepower (hp) or more; and (2) two-engine vehicles other than on-road two-engine sweepers. The regulations apply to both owned as well as rented and leased vehicles. As used in this article, the term “vehicle(s)” refers to these two classes of vehicles. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

September 03, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Prompt payment penalty cases do not come around very often, but when they do, there is bound to be fireworks. In James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., et al. (No. C072169, filed 8/27/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District upheld the trial court's discretion to not award prevailing party attorneys' fees to the party who won a prompt payment dispute. California Business and Professions Code §7108.5 and Public Contract Code §§7107 and 10262 are the mechanisms for obtaining prompt payment relief in California. As shown by the outcome, it is possible to win and lose at the same time. West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) was the prime contractor on a school construction project for Stockton Unified School District. West Bay entered into a subcontract agreement with James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) on the project. During construction there were disagreements between West Bay and Harris regarding the contractual scope of work, and Harris performed work it believed was outside the contract, believing it would be paid for the additional work. After West Bay refused to pay for the additional work, Harris left the project, and West Bay hired another subcontractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

October 01, 2014 — Flavia Krause-Jackson – Bloomberg
Replacing the world’s substandard housing and building affordable alternatives to meet future global demand would cost as much as $11 trillion, according to initial findings in a McKinsey & Co. report. The shortage of decent accommodation means as many as 1.6 billion people from London to Shanghai may be forced to choose between shelter or necessities such as health care, food and education, data disclosed at the 2014 CityLab Conference in Los Angeles show. McKinsey will release the full report in October. The global consulting company says governments should release parcels of land at below-market prices, put housing developments near transportation and unlock idle property hoarded by speculators and investors. The report noted that China fines owners 20 percent of the land price if property is undeveloped after a year and has the right to subsequently confiscate it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Flavia Krause-Jackson, Bloomberg
Ms. Krause-Jackson may be contacted at fjackson@bloomberg.net

Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Thomas G. Cronin of Gordon & Rees LLP (published in Association of Corporate Counsel), “[i]n 15th Place Condominium Association v. South Campus Development Team LLC, the Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois held that a claim for breach of an express indemnity clause within a construction agreement was subject to the 10-year statute of limitations for written contracts instead of the four-year statute of limitations for construction claims.” In 2008, the condo association sued the developer alleging “it had discovered latent design and construction defects in the condominium towers. In 2011, the developer filed a third-party complaint against the general contractor alleging breach of express indemnity.” While the general contractor prevailed in the first trial, the appellate court reversed the decision, “concluding that the nature of the developer’s express indemnity claim against the general contractor related to the failure to indemnify rather than to a construction-related activity.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Homes in Palo Alto to Be Electric-Car Ready

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Electric cars are still fairly rare, but if you buy a new home in Palo Alto, you’ll have a place to charge it. The Palo Alto City Council has been enthusiastic about a measure that would require new homes to come wired for car chargers. The hope of the council is that the measure will make owning an electric car “convenient, easy and economical.” If added to the construction process, the wiring adds about $200 to the cost of the home, far less than the cost of adding it to an existing home. In addition to considering changes in the building code, the city also considered measures that would allow for the operation of public charging stations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES