Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Right to Repair Act Means What it Says and Says What it Means

December 18, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
A rather short case for a short week. In Gerlach v. K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC, 82 Cal.App.5th 303 (2022), the 4th District Court of appeals examined provisions of the Right to Repair Act (Civ. Code §§895 et. seq), also known as “SB 800” after its original bill number, as it applies to roofs. The Gerlach Case Lynn Gerlach and Lola Seals are homeowners who purchased their homes in the Four Seasons at Beaumont adult community, for those 55 year old and older, located in Beaumont, California. Gerlach purchased her home when it was built in 2006. Seals purchased her home from the original owners in 2015. In 2015 and 2016, Gerlach and Seals served the developer, K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC, with claim notices under the Right to Repair Act. The Right to Repair Act, as its name implies, provides notice requirements and repair rights by developers of new single-family homes. The Right to Repair Act also includes construction standards, the violation of which, provides homeowners with a statutory basis for bringing construction defect claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Indemnity Payment to Insured Satisfies SIR

March 11, 2014 — Tred Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In response to certified questions from the Eleventh Circuit, the Florida Supreme Court found that a contractual indemnity payment to the insured satisfied the policy's SIR requirement. Intervest Constr. of Jax v. Gen. Fid. Ins. Co., 2014 Fl. LEXIS 568 (Fla. Feb. 6, 2014). ICI Homes, Inc. a general contractor, hired Custom Cutting, Inc. to provide trim work, including installation of attic stairs in a residence ICI was building. Under the contract, Custom Cutting agreed to indemnify ICI for any damages resulting from Custom Cutting's negligence. The owner of the residence fell while using the attic stairs installed by Custom Cutting, injurying herself. The owner sued ICI, who sought indemnification from Custom Cutting. ICI's policy with General Fidelity had a $1 million SIR. The policy also had a transfer of rights clause granting the insurer some subrogation rights. The case was mediated. The parties agreed to a settlement of $1.6 million. Custom Cutting's insurer proposed paying $1 million to ICI to settle the indemnification claim. ICI, in turn, would pay that $1 million to the residence owner. A dispute arose over wither ICI or General Fidelity was responsible for paying the remaining $600,000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The State of Florida has frozen the assets of Nationwide Pools over claims of deceptive practices. Nationwide will be allowed to engage in pool construction during the lawsuit. The Florida Attorney General’s office alleges that Nationwide Pools failed to pay subcontractors, misrepresented warranties, and left customers with unfinished pools. The State of Florida is seeking restitution to consumers who did business with Nationwide Pools. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law

December 20, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The year was 1995. The old guard was still in power in Sacramento. “Button-Down” Pete Wilson was Governor. Willie Brown, the self-nicknamed “Ayatollah of the Assembly,” was Speaker of the Assembly. And Bill “Huggy” Lockyer was Senate Pro Tem. Names that, for many reasons as of late, seem . . . well . . . let’s just say, “quaint.” Their time, however, was coming to an end. Three years earlier, California voters approved Proposition 140, which instituted term limits for the first time in California. And by 1996, the first slate of legislators would be “termed out.” The immediate impact: It was the time for making deals because you didn’t know who would be keeping house next. 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

Delays and Suspension of the Work Under Fixed Price Government Contract

July 22, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here is an interesting fact pattern and case decided by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals dealing with (1) force majeure type events and epidemics (Covid-19); (2) suspension of the work; and (3) delays. These are three topics important to all contractors including federal contractors. In Lusk Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v General Services Administration, 2024 WL 1953697, CBCA 7759 (CBCA 2024), a contractor entered into a fixed price contract with the government to repair, replace, and modernize site and building systems at a federal building. The contractor commenced work right before Covid-19. When Covid-19 hit, the government issued the contractor a two-week suspension of work notice on March 27, 2020. The suspension of work allowed off-site administrative work to continue but suspended on-site physical work. The government extended the suspension of work three more times. The contractor could resume work on the exterior on June 1, 2020, but was not permitted to resume work on the interior until July 20, 2020. On the same date that the contractor was able to commence interior work, it submitted a modification for delay caused by the suspension – 64 days for the time period the entire site shutdown, and 51 days for the interior work shutdown. 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

No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

July 09, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Washington Court of Appeals found there was no duty to defend the insured under a strict liability statute for alleged contamination when no action was threatened by the agency. Gull Indus., Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1338 (Wa. Ct. App. June 2, 2014). Gull leased a gas station to the Johnsons from 1972 to 1980. In 2005, Gull notified the Department of Ecology (DOE) that there had be a release of petroleum product at the station. DOE sent a letter acknowledging Gull's notice of suspected contamination. In 2009, Gull tendered its defense to its insurer, Transamerica Insurance Group. Gull also tendered its claims as an additional insured to the Johnson's insurer, State Farm. Neither insurer accepted the tenders. Gull then sued the insurers, arguing they had a duty to defend. Gull contended that because the state statute imposed strict liability, the duty to defend arose whether or not an agency had sent any communications about the statute or cleanup obligations. The insurers moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Does Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code Impact Your Construction Project?

November 07, 2022 — Chris Cazenave - ConsensusDocs
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a set of statutes governing commercial transactions. Every state has adopted the UCC or some version of it. Understanding when and how the UCC applies to construction contracts is important because it can affect the agreement’s terms. Article 2 of the UCC applies to the sales of goods, which the UCC defines very broadly to mean “all things (including specialty manufactured goods) which are movable . . . other than money in which the price is to be paid . . . .” UCC § 2-105. For the construction industry, UCC Article 2 governs most, if not all, purchases of materials and equipment installed or incorporated into the project. As a result, contractors and subcontractors should be familiar with the circumstances under which Article 2 may apply and how it may affect the project. This article provides a brief overview of when Article 2 may affect your construction project and why it matters. The article also generally covers the UCC’s potential effects on the applicable statute of limitations, implied warranties, and when the obligation to make the payment arises. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Cazenave, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Cazenave may be contacted at ccazenave@joneswalker.com

Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

November 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES