Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tear Down This Wall!”

September 06, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
If you enter a contract to do that in Louisiana, you had better have Louisiana contractor’s license! It is now axiomatic in Louisiana that when a Louisiana contractor’s license is required, the contract for work performed by an unlicensed contractor is an “absolute nullity,” such that the contract is deemed never to have existed. While Louisiana does not prohibit (as would be the case in certain other states) that contractor from quantum meruit/unjust enrichment recovery, who wants to rely on those noncontractual bases for recovery? After any hurricane in Louisiana, out-of-state contractors swoop in. In the case of a water mitigation company from Texas working on a property that was water damaged by Hurricane Ida, the customer refused to pay for services rendered and then defended against payment by urging that work performed by the mitigation firm required a Louisiana contractor’s license – which the mitigation firm lacked. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Adriana Perez, Selected to the National Association of Women Lawyers’ 2023 Rising List

March 27, 2023 — Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Congratulations to Adriana Perez on her selection to the National Association of Women Lawyers’ (NAWL) 2023 Rising List. Adriana is a member of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s national Insurance Recovery practice and is based in the Firm’s Miami, Florida office. Hunton Insurance Recovery Partner, Michael Levine, commented on the enormous success the team has had in recent years, with recognitions like Adriana’s being emblematic of the team’s high caliber practice and visibility. Team Head, Syed Ahmad, added that the recognition is a tribute to Adriana’s growth as a young lawyer and her trajectory to become an industry leader. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

2019 California Construction Law Update

January 15, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The California State Legislature introduced 2,637 bills during the second year fo the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Of these, 1,016 were signed into law. It was last official bill signing for Governor Jerry Brown who ends not only his second term as Governor but a colorful political career spanning nearly 50 years during which he has dated pop stars, practiced Zen meditation, kicked it with radical ex-nuns and an Apollo astronaut and, at 80, has sparred regularly with President Trump on issues ranging from climate change to immigration to net neutrality. For those in the construction industry it wasn’t quite as exciting, unless of course you count SCR 120, which officially makes April “California Safe Digging Month.” Hooray! Each of the bills discussed below took effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise stated. Building Codes SB 721 – Requires the inspection of exterior elevated elements, including balconies, decks, porches, stairways, walkways, and elevated entry structures, of multifamily buildings with three or more dwelling units by an architect, engineer or contractor with a Class A, B or C-5 license by January 1, 2025 and by January 1st every six years thereafter. Elements posing an immediate threat to the safety of occupants, or which prevent occupant access or emergency repairs, are required to be repaired immediately. Elements not posing an immediate threat to the safety of occupants, or which do not prevent occupant access or emergency repairs, are required to be repaired within 180 days. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

December 21, 2020 — Frederick E. Hedberg - Construction Executive
The global COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world forever, disrupting many industries, as well as creating unprecedented challenges that threaten many businesses. The construction industry is no different. Projects throughout the country have been adversely affected by unplanned work stoppages, delays, disruptions to the supply chain, price escalations and other unanticipated events. It is critical that owners, developers, contractors and suppliers learn from their experiences over the past year and account for the COVID-19 pandemic when drafting and negotiating contracts for their projects. First and foremost, parties should clearly define their rights and responsibilities to properly manage risks due to COVID-19 and its impacts. COVID-19 and other key related terms should be defined, relying on the CDC and state governments for guidance, to eliminate any uncertainties. The contract should also identify executive orders, guidelines and regulations that have been issued concerning COVID-19 by states, municipalities and other authorities that have jurisdiction where the project is located. Reprinted courtesy of Frederick E. Hedberg, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Hedberg may be contacted at fhedberg@rc.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Too Costly to Be Fair: Texas Appellate Court Finds the Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Unenforceable

November 21, 2022 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Cont’l Homes of Tex., L.P. v. Perez, No. 04-21-00396-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 7691, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Appellate Court) considered whether the lower court erred in refusing to enforce an arbitration clause in a construction contract between the parties. The Appellate Court considered the costs of the arbitration forum required by the contract in the context of the plaintiffs’ monthly household income. The court also compared the arbitration cost to the estimated cost of litigating the dispute. The court held that the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable on the grounds that the arbitration costs were not affordable for the plaintiffs and not an “adequate and accessible substitute to litigation.” The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s decision denying the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiffs, Giancarlo and Krystle Perez (collectively, the Perezes), hired the defendant, Continental Homes of Texas, LP d/b/a Express Home (Express Homes), to build a new home in San Antonio. Express Homes provided its standard contract, which included a binding arbitration clause. The clause stated that every potential dispute between the parties occurring before and after the closing of the purchase of the home was subject to binding arbitration, to be administered and conducted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The clause also stated that the costs of the arbitration were to be split by the parties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

February 15, 2018 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Civil litigation attorneys often talk about “damages.” Because without damages . . . well . . . you’re out of luck. But damages come in different flavors. In construction litigation, when it comes to defective construction, there are two basic flavors: actual damages and economic damages. Actual damages include property damage and personal injury, such as a defective roof that causes water damage into the interior of the structure or collapses causing injury to someone inside the structure. In contrast, economic damages would be the cost to repair or replace the defective roof, without any resulting property damage or personal injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

August 19, 2015 — Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLP
In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit

September 17, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are cases where I honestly do no fully understand the insurer’s position because it cannot have its cake and eat it too. The recent opinion in Houston Specialty Insurance Company v. Vaughn, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1828a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) is one of those cases because on one hand it tried hard to disclaim coverage and on the other hand tried to intervene in the underlying suit where it was not a named party. This case dealt with a personal injury dispute where a laborer for a pressure washing company fell off of a roof and became a paraplegic. The injured person sued the pressure washing company and its representatives. The company and representatives tendered the case to its general liability insurer and the insurer–although it provided a defense under a reservation of rights—filed a separate action for declaratory relief based on an exclusion in the general liability policy that excluded coverage for the pressure washing company’s employees (because the general liability policy is not a workers compensation policy). This is known as the employer’s liability exclusion that excludes coverage for bodily injury to an employee. The insurer’s declaratory relief action sought a declaration that there was no coverage because the injured laborer was an employee of the pressure washing company. The pressure washing company claimed he was an independent contractor, in which the policy did provide limited coverage pursuant to an endorsement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES