Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Substantial Completion Explained: What Contractors & Owners Should Know

January 17, 2022 — Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
A project’s Substantial Completion date is a critical construction milestone for contractors and owners. Depending on the contract, the date of Substantial Completion has project-specific contractual and statutory consequences. Substantial Completion is an “event” – there is no universal definition of the term. It is generally understood to be (1) a point in time (2) when work performed by the contractor is sufficiently complete (3) where it can be used or occupied for the owner’s intended purpose. The date of Substantial Completion is generally established at the time of contract formation (either as a negotiated or a contract set date), and that date may be adjusted over the course of a project to account for excusable delays. As a construction professional, your attorney should review and tailor any written agreement to your project-specific needs and risk tolerances prior to execution. Savvy construction professionals often start with standard form agreements promulgated by the American Institute of Architects (“AIA”), the Design-Build Institute of America (“DBIA”), or the Engineers Joint Contract Document Committee (“EJCDC”) as the basis for their construction contracts. The AIA, DBIA, and EJCDC standard forms each contains contract provisions relating to when and what happens once Substantial Completion has occurred, subject to any agreed-to, project-specific deviations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.com

COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds

March 30, 2020 — Ben Williams & MG Surety - Construction Executive
As COVID-19 continues to expand around the United States and the world, it may only be a matter of time before U.S. construction projects are affected by the virus. Performance bonds guarantee that a project will be completed by a contractor according to the contract. However, what if a contractor cannot complete a project on time due to widespread disease? What, if any, impact could the virus have on a contractor’s surety bond program? Risk Factors Several risks associated with the virus could trigger a performance bond claim. 1. Materials. The Chinese account for a large supply of construction materials, including steel, copper, cabinetry, etc. An inability to obtain these materials could significantly delay or stop a project all together. Even if a contractor is able to obtain them from other sources, it may be at a significantly higher cost than they put into the bid. 2. Labor. There is already a shortage of qualified labor in the construction industry. Additionally, construction already lends itself to the spreading of viruses; workers are often in close proximity, handling common materials, and they may not have an easily accessible place to wash their hands. Furthermore, even though many now have paid sick leave, there is often pressure not to use it. These things could magnify the labor shortage and make it difficult to complete projects on time. 3. Safety. Finally, the world is having a serious shortage of respirators. Because of widespread panic, many people have been purchasing N95 respirators—so much that the Surgeon General has asked people to stop buying them. It has created a shortage for people who really need them, like contractors. If contractors can’t get these safety masks, certain trades will either be unable to work, or risk continuing the project without masks, which would endanger workers and open them up to OSHA penalties. Reprinted courtesy of Ben Williams and MG Surety, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Williams may be contacted at benw@mgsuretybonds.com

California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

December 21, 2020 — Nicholas Korst - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent case in California, the Court of Appeals held that a surety who had issued a public works payment bond cannot rely on the “Pay-When-Paid” provision in the subcontract as a defense against the subcontractor’s claim against the payment bond.[1] The case was a public works project in Kern County, CA where the North Edwards Water District (the “District”) hired Clark Bros., Inc. (“Clark”) as the general contractor to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired subcontractor Crosno Construction (“Crosno”) to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. The subcontract included the following “pay-when-paid” provision, which provided a definition of “reasonable time”: If the Owner or other responsible party delays in making any payment to the Contractor from which payment to Subcontractor is made, Contractor and its sureties shall have a reasonable time to make payment. “Reasonable time” shall be determined according to the relevant circumstances, but in no event shall be less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against the Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment, including (but not limited to) mechanics lien remedies. (emphasis added). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nick Korst, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Korst may be contacted at nicholas.korst@acslawyers.com

FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

February 05, 2015 — Clea Benson – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s overseer wants to allow debt cuts for a narrow group of borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth. The trick is figuring out a way to do it without incurring costs for taxpayers. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Melvin L. Watt told reporters Wednesday that he is still studying the idea of reducing principal on properties with depressed values, a step backed by housing advocates and Democratic lawmakers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Clea Benson, Bloomberg

Agree First or it May Cost You Later

May 08, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
Business relationships often begin before parties execute a written agreement containing the terms and conditions by which the relationship will be governed. With little more than a Letter of Intent (“LOI”) or Letter of Award (“LOA”) one party is typically pressured to begin investing time and money to start preliminary work on a project. If such LOI or LOA contains nothing more than an agreement to agree later, the performing party should minimize its investment until the later agreement is executed. A recent court decision in New York confirmed the danger to the performing party under “agreement to agree” provisions. In Permasteelia North America Corp. v. JDS Const. Group, LLC, 2022 WL 2954131 (N.Y. Sup. CT. 7/22/22), the plaintiff subcontractor allegedly performed $1.9 million worth of preliminary work under nothing more than a LOA with an agreement to agree provision. Issues arose, and the parties never entered any later written agreement. The general contractor refused to pay the plaintiff anything for its preliminary work. In response, the plaintiff filed suit against the general contractor asserting four counts: foreclosure of its lien, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and account stated. All four counts were based on an alleged oral “handshake deal” for subcontract work for the project. The general contractor’s LOA stated that neither party would be bound “unless and until the parties actually execute a subcontract.” During discovery, the plaintiff admitted that neither party intended to enter into any contract until its potential terms were negotiated, reduced to writing, and signed. Moreover, the plaintiff only offered one set of meeting minutes and a few project agendas to support its alleged “handshake deal.” Once these necessary undisputed facts were confirmed, the defendant moved for summary judgment on all four counts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

Caterpillar Said to Be Focus of Senate Overseas Tax Probe

March 26, 2014 — Richard Rubin and Jesse Drucker - Bloomberg
A U.S. Senate investigative panel is examining Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) and whether the company improperly avoided U.S. taxes by moving profits outside the country, said three people familiar with the inquiry. The Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hold a hearing in early April, said two of the people. They spoke on condition of anonymity before an official announcement. Rachel Potts, a spokeswoman for Caterpillar, declined to comment. Two staff members for the subcommittee declined to comment. In 2009, Daniel Schlicksup, an employee who had worked on tax strategy, alleged in a lawsuit in federal court that Caterpillar used a “Swiss structure” to shift profits to offshore companies and avoid more than $2 billion in U.S. taxes. He also alleged that Caterpillar used a “Bermuda structure” involving shell companies to return profits to the U.S. without paying required taxes. Mr. Rubin may be contacted at rrubin12@bloomberg.net; Mr. Drucker may be contacted at jdrucker4@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Rubin and Jesse Drucker, Bloomberg

KB to Spend $43.2 Million on Florida Construction Defects

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In their second quarter filing with the SEC, KB Homes estimates that repairing damage caused by defects in framing, stucco, roofs, and sealant will cost it $43.2 million. That estimate includes homes that are yet to be identified. KB had estimated lower costs earlier, but subsequently determined it was necessary to increase the funds by $15.9. As a result, the firm showed a loss in the second quarter. The company hopes to recover some funds in insurance settlements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

September 14, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (No. B272387; filed 8/31/17) (Montrose III), a California appeals court found that excess insurance is not triggered for continuous and progressive losses until there has been horizontal exhaustion of underlying insurance, but there is no “universal horizontal exhaustion” because the order or sequence in which excess policies may be accessed depends on the specific policy wording at issue. The coverage lawsuit was initiated by Montrose in 1990, when it was named in environmental actions for continuous and progressive property damage emanating from its Torrance chemical plant since the 1960s. Montrose had varying levels of insurance coverage throughout, but the total limits and attachment points of differing levels of excess coverage in any given year had changed from year-to-year. The coverage action was stayed in 2006 due to concern of prejudice to the underlying defense, but the stay was lifted in 2014 with Montrose entering a consent decree in the CERCLA action. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES