Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

June 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are times where being too darn cute with your pleading allegations is unnecessary and does not work. But, the point is really that the cuteness is unnecessary. In a Miller Act payment bond dispute in Boneso Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc., 2018 WL 2387833 (N.D.Cal. 2018), a claimant asserted claims against a Miller Act payment bond surety for breach of the payment bond, breach of a subcontract, open account, and account stated. The question is why would the claimant sue the payment bond surety for breach of subcontract (when the subcontract was not with the surety), and open account and account stated. I have no clue, other than such claims appeared quite unnecessary when the claimant asserted an action on the Miller Act payment bond (which is what the surety is liable under — actions under the statutory payment bond). Such claims were dismissed. And, they should have been. 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

DC Wins Largest-Ever Civil Penalty in US Housing Discrimination Suit

November 15, 2022 — Kriston Capps - Bloomberg
Three real estate companies operating in Washington, DC, will pay record-breaking penalties in a suit brought by the city for illegally discriminating against tenants who use Section 8 vouchers and other forms of housing assistance. The attorney general for the District of Columbia, Karl Racine, announced on Thursday a settlement for $10 million. While fair housing cases involving lenders have resulted in larger compensation payouts, $10 million is the largest civil penalty ever levied in a housing discrimination case. In 2020, the city sued several entities — DARO Management Services, DARO Realty and New York-based parent company Infinity Real Estate, as well as several executives — over housing practices in the District. DARO Management operates and rents some 1,200 residential units in more than a dozen apartment buildings spread across Wards 1, 2 and 3, which include DC’s more affluent areas. (DARO Realty owns the properties, DARO Management operates them, and Infinity owns both affiliates.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

November 21, 2017 — Mark Himmelstein & Jenny Guzman – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Originally published by CDJ on June 15, 2017 Since 2008 when the California legislature limited subcontractor indemnity obligations, the design professional community has been shouting “what about us?” Well, the legislature finally responded and a new law that limits design professional’s defense and indemnity obligations to their percentage of fault goes into effect on January 1, 2018. THE NEW LAW – SB 496 SB 496 amends California Civil Code section 2782.8 and states that indemnity agreements must be limited to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the indemnitee (i.e. no more Type I indemnity with design professionals). The amendment also provides that “in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design professional exceed the design professional’s proportionate percentage of fault”, with a limited opportunity for reallocation in the event another defendant is judgment proof. However, the duty to defend still remains and still arises at the time of the tender of the defense (both issues that were unsuccessfully targeted by the design professional lobbyists). Reprinted courtesy of Mark Himmelstein, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP and Jenny Guzman, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP Mr. Price may be contacted at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com Ms. Zucker may be contacted at jenny.guzman@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights

November 26, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic, Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, & Colin T. Murphy - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Moorefield Construction, Inc. v. Intervest-Mortgage Investment Co., 230 Cal. App. 4th 146 (4th Dist. 2014), a California appellate court upheld an agreement executed by a general contractor which subordinated its mechanic’s lien to a construction lender’s deed of trust. In 2006, developer DBN Parkside LLC ("DBN") purchased land in San Jacinto, California (the "property") to build a medical complex (the "project"). DBN hired Moorefield Construction, Inc. (“Moorefield”) to act as general contractor and sought funding for the project from Intervest-Mortgage Investment Company (“Intervest”). Prior to the recordation of the construction loan, and unbeknownst to Intervest, Moorefield cleared and grubbed the project site. Pursuant to the construction loan agreement, Intervest required DBN to assign its rights and remedies under the construction contract to Intervest. Under its construction contract, Moorefield agreed to subordinate its lien rights to the construction loan. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Steven M. Cvitanovic, Jessica M. Lassere Ryland and Colin T. Murphy Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Lassere Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

January 28, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Over the past two weeks here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed the first two stages of a typical construction dispute (if such a thing exists): the claim, and how to bring heat short of litigation/arbitration. As promised, this week I’ll be discussing the next step or “last straw” in a construction dispute, namely, arbitration or litigation to enforce all of those rights that you preserved in the first two stages. Construction litigation is expensive, time consuming, and, quite frankly, a pain in the neck. Because of this fact, I almost always recommend that my construction clients exhaust all of the non-litigation methods (including mediation of course) of resolving their disputes prior to “going nuclear” and filing suit. Unfortunately, even the most diligent attempts at less formal resolution means can be unfruitful and more formal means become necessary. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tender Is the Fight”

August 21, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A performance bond surety for a defaulted general contractor principal found itself with a recalcitrant owner which refused to accept the tender of a replacement general contractor to complete a $3,000,000 construction project in Monmouth County, New Jersey. Even before the original GC was off the job, the surety – having been notified of the contractor’s difficulties in performing the work – stepped in promptly, providing assistance in the form of an additional contractor. At the surety’s behest, that additional contractor remained on the project (focused principally at the time on roof repairs) after the initial GC was placed in default and terminated. Eventually, the surety, by draft tender agreement issued to the owner, offered that the additional contractor serve as the completion contractor for the entire project (not simply the roof repairs), a proposal rejected by the owner – which had never cared for the additional contractor. Instead, the owner proposed its own completion contractor and, in connection with that offer, demanded a sum of money ($1.6 million) from the surety – a proposal the surety rejected: “[Owner] cannot choose whatever contractor it wants to complete the work and then charge the costs to [the surety]." 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

No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

September 18, 2018 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The risk that a contractor’s client may refuse to pay the full contract balance is a day-to-day reality for every contractor. That risk – and the stress it causes in the mind of any contractor – is tempered by the knowledge that Washington statutes provide contractors with ready access to the courts to file a lawsuit and be fully compensated for the work performed. But a recent case provides a grim reminder that the same statutes that giveth court access can also taketh away. Washington’s Contractor Registration Act (“WCRA”)[1] requires every contractor engaging or offering to engage in services in Washington to register with the Department of Labor and Industries (”L&I”). In order to sue to collect compensation for work or to enforce a contract, a contractor must prove that he/she “was a duly registered contractor and held a current and valid certificate of registration at the time he or she contracted for the performance of such work or entered into such contract.”[2] In order to conclude that a contractor has substantially comply with these requirements, a court must find that: (1) The department has on file the information required by RCW 18.27.030; (2) the contractor has at all times had in force a current bond or other security as required by RCW 18.27.040; and (3) the contractor has at all times had in force current insurance as required by RCW 18.27.050.[3] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

Homebuilding Held Back by Lack of Skilled Workers

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Home construction in Michigan could surge by thirty-seven percent this year, if the workers are there to build these houses. Aaron Rigozzi, the owner of Semper Fi Construction, told the Detroit Free Press that at the height of the boom he had fourteen employees whose wages reached $25 an hour. Now his firm has filed for bankruptcy and has only three employees. The top wage is $16 an hour. He also has the problem of people whose skills are less than what they claim. “You can hire people and they say they can do this or that, but they really can’t.” The Home Builders Association of Michigan says that this is stretching out the time to complete a new house by months, and leading homeowners who are looking for a contractor stranded for weeks. In 2012, more home permits were taken out than in any year since 2008. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES