Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

April 28, 2016 — David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
California’s Business and Professions Code requires contractors to be licensed by the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). The CSLB issues licenses in 44 different classifications which are separated into three categories: “A” licenses are for general engineering contractors, “B” licenses are for general building contractors, and “C” licenses are specialty licenses that cover everything from installing boilers to installing ornamental metal. Performing construction work without a license or without the requisite license is a misdemeanor and can lead to the imposition of fines and in certain instances, jail time. (California’s Business and Professions Code Section 7028(a).) While potential imprisonment is unlikely, contractors are frequently fined, or prohibited from filing suit to collect money for their work. Perhaps most onerous, a contractor who is unlicensed, or working with a suspended license or the wrong license, can be forced to return all of the money it was paid for its work. (See our alert:Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com

Steven Cvitanovic to Present at NASBP Virtual Seminar

January 13, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Partner Steven Cvitanovic will speak at the National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP) Virtual Seminar on Tuesday, January 31 at 11:00 A.M. PST. The presentation will provide a brief overview of risks covered by traditional insurance products, and will then expand on significant exposures arising from a contractors operations/contracts that are not covered by traditional insurance. The session will provide examples of these non-traditional risks and strategies to mitigate them. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute

July 06, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In 501 East 51st Street etc. v. Kookmin Best Ins. Co., Ltd. (No. B293605, filed 4/2/20, ordered pub. 4/16/20), a California appeals court affirmed summary adjudication and dismissal of a bad faith claim based on the genuine dispute doctrine. 501 East 51st Street Long-Beach-10, LLC (501) was the owner of a 10-unit apartment complex, insured by Kookmin Best. In 2017, an underground water main alongside the building burst which, according to 501, caused the building to move and crack. 501 made a claim and supplied a geotechnical report finding cracks in the foundation walls, cracks in the stucco and significant floor deformation and tilting near the water leak. The engineer’s opinion concluded that that “existing building distress was substantially contributed to by the water main break. The water introduced to the soil medium appears to have triggered differential foundation movement causing the stress features to develop.” Kookmin retained its own engineers to investigate, who returned an opinion that the leak had exacerbated long-term pre-existing settlement which would continue. Under the policy, damage to the building caused by earth movement and settlement were excluded, but water damage resulting from an “accidental discharge” of water was covered. Kookmin then obtained an opinion from coverage counsel, who opined that only damage allocable to the water leak would be covered. 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

The Latest News on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

May 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Federal Housing Finance Agency released a report on April 30th, which stated that in a severe economic downturn Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) “could require an additional bailout of as much as $190 billion… according to the results of stress tests,” according to Clea Benson writing for Bloomberg. “These results of the severely adverse scenario are not surprising given the company’s limited capital,” FNMA Senior Vice President Kelli Parsons said in a statement, as reported by Benson published in Bloomberg. “Under the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, Fannie Mae is not permitted to retain capital to withstand a sudden, unexpected economic shock of the magnitude required by the stress test.” Furthermore, in another Bloomberg article, Cheyenne Hopkins and Clea Benson reported that Democrats remain divided on how to replace FNMA and FMCC. “If we don’t get this right, we’ll create major disturbances in the housing market which will have a profound impact on families, on homeownership and certainly on our national economy,” Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley said in an interview, as reported by Cheyenne and Benson. “Merkley described himself as ‘still in negotiations’ with the bill’s sponsors.” Read the full story, Clea Benson Article... Read the full story, Cheyenne Hopkins & Clea Benson Article... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

September 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor

August 17, 2017 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
AB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” – defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general contractor’s contract with the project owner. Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated damages from the general contractor. AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action. It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability. Impact AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor. As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily regulated as public works. CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

January 08, 2019 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
The underlying causes of the trouble at San Francisco’s 4.5-block-long Salesforce Transit Center are coming into focus. A combination of low fracture toughness deep inside thick steel plates, cracks present as a consequence of normal steel fabrication and stress levels from loads, which are a function of design, apparently caused brittle fractures in the bottom flanges of the center's twin built-up plate girders that span 80 ft across Fremont Street. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

September 21, 2020 — Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & Abramson
In our previous alert, we discussed the Federal Government’s Ban (the “Ban”) on certain Chinese covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services in federal government contracts. The ban prohibits government contractors and subcontractors from supplying to the Federal Government or using in their own internal operations certain telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced by Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ban currently applies to companies contracting directly with the Federal Government. Soon, however, the Ban – at least in part – will expand to contractors and subcontractors who are awarded certain federally assisted contracts and subcontracts. On August 13, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published Final Guidance revising its grants and agreements regulations (2 CFR Part 200) to prohibit recipients and subrecipients from using loan or grant funds to purchase or obtain covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services. Effective November 12, 2020, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:

Procure or obtain;
Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.

Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES