SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Award of Attorneys’ Fees Although Defended by Principal

February 01, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
For contractors involved in California public works projects the scenario is not uncommon: The general contractor awarded the public works project is required to obtain a payment bond for the benefit of subcontractors and suppliers and the payment bond surety issuing the payment bond requires the general contractor to defend and indemnify the surety from and against any claims against the payment bond. In Cell-Crete Corporation v. Federal Insurance Company, 82 Cal.App.5th 1090 (2022), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a payment bond surety, who prevails in a claim against the payment bond, is entitled to statutory attorneys’ fees when the party actually incurring the attorneys’ fees was the general contractor, pursuant to its defense and indemnity obligations, as opposed to the surety itself. The Cell-Crete Case General contractor Granite Construction Company was awarded a public works contract issued by the City of Thermal known as the Airport Boulevard at Grapefruit Boulevard and Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation Project. We’ll just call it the “Project.” Subcontractor Cell-Crete Corporation entered into a subcontract with Granite for lightweight concrete and related work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

August 20, 2019 — Brian Hearst - Construction Executive
This is the second of three articles bringing clarity to the complex and challenging course of construction exposures and providing solutions for mitigating risk through builder’s risk insurance coverage. Part I, Builder’s Risk Coverage – Language Matters, addressed a select few critical exposures to projects under the course of construction. Part II addresses how a standard builder’s risk policy may respond to a loss arising from defective construction and alternative insurance market offerings that can help with specific costs associated with construction defect loss. Coverage for Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Part I tackled the standard builder’s risk exclusion that applies to losses arising from faulty materials or workmanship. Traditionally, carriers do not have an appetite for covering a contractor’s failure to perform their work properly. There is one exception, which is coverage is available for ensuing loss – or the resulting damage to other property from faulty workmanship. If the excluded cause of loss (i.e., faulty workmanship) causes resultant damage, the builder’s risk policy will cover the damages to the extent the peril of fire is covered. The ensuing loss exception limits the faulty work exclusion to costs directly related to repairing or replacing the faulty work. For example, suppose faulty wiring work leads to a fire which damages part of a structure under construction. The faulty workmanship exclusion would apply to the actual faulty wiring work, but if fire is a covered peril under the policy (this is nearly always the case), the policy would respond to the structure’s fire damage. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Hearst, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Hearst may be contacted at Brian.Hearst@lockton.com

---

Florida’s New Civil Remedies Act – Bulletpoints As to How It Impacts Construction

April 10, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There has been much talk about Florida’s new Civil Remedies Act (House Bill 837) that Governor DeSantis approved on March 24, 2023. As it pertains to construction, here is how I see it with key bulletpoints on the impact this new Act has on the construction industry:

• New Florida Statute s. 86.121 – This is an attorney’s fees statute for declaratory relief actions to the prevailing insured to determine insurance coverage after TOTAL COVERAGE DENIAL. (Note: A defense offered pursuant to a reservation of rights is not a total coverage denial.) This right only belongs to the insured and cannot be transferred or assigned. And the parties are entitled to the summary procedure set forth in Florida Statute s. 51.011 requiring the court to advance the cause on the calendar. The new statute does say it does NOT apply to any action arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy. (Thus, since builder’s risk coverage is a form of property insurance, the strong presumption is this new statute would not apply to it.) Rather, the recent changes to Florida Statute s. 626.9373 would apply which provides, “In any suit arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy, there is no right to attorney fees under this section.”
• Florida Statute s. 95.11 – The statute of limitations for negligence causes of action are two years instead of four years. This applies to “causes of action accruing after the effective date of this act.”

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 Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

October 18, 2021 — Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Introduction: Under a no-damage-for-delay clause, the owner is not liable for any monetary damages resulting from delays on the project. In lieu of monetary recovery, the contractor’s remaining remedy is a non-compensatory time extension. These clauses are common at the contractor-subcontractor interface as well. While no-damage-for-delay clauses are enforced in most jurisdictions, some states, either by statute or case law, have limited the enforceability of no-damage-for-delay clauses. Other states have also limited the enforceability of these clauses on state government contracts, and a select few have outlawed them on all projects regardless if they are publicly or privately owned. Additionally, for subcontractors on federal projects, the Miller Act may provide a way to avoid no-damage-for-delay and recover against the general contractor’s payment bond. This article provides an overview of no-damage-for-delay clauses and the exceptions to enforcement of these clauses. However, due to the consequences of a no-damage-for-delay clause, it is important to know the terms of your contract and the law that governs your project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com

---

BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute

December 23, 2024 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In the recent case of BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dealt with significant legal issues concerning indemnification and insurance obligations in construction agreements. The ruling, handed down on September 26, 2024, serves as a crucial reminder of the limitations imposed by Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, and its implications for contracts in the construction industry. This case arose from a Master Service Contract (“MSC”) between BKV Barnett, LLC (“BKV”) and Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC (“EDT”), in which EDT provided electrical services and equipment to an oil and gas lease wellsite in Texas. Following a lightning strike in early 2022 that damaged electrical infrastructure at the site, EDT dispatched Turn Key Utility Construction to repair the damage. During the repair work, an arc flash occurred, causing significant injuries to one of Turn Key’s employees, Matthew Lara, leading to a personal injury lawsuit filed by Lara in Dallas County, Texas. BKV sought indemnification, defense, and additional insured status from EDT under the terms of their MSC, which EDT contested. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A construction wall collapsed on November 1 during heavy rainfall in New York City. Two women were briefly trapped under the rubble, while other bystanders worked to free them. Einstein Construction Group, a contractor based in Texas, was remodeling the first floor for a new tenant, a Japanese restaurant. The company, which disclaims responsibility for the occurrence, were cited for violations and a stop work order was issued. Just prior to the incident, high winds whipped through the area. The construction wall allegedly had not been securely attached to the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

November 06, 2018 — Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis & Ashley Kellgren - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
The State of Florida has long been known as one of the most challenging jurisdictions for insurance carriers in the context of bad faith – to say the least. Two recent appellate decisions have taken an already difficult environment and seemingly “upped the ante” in what constitutes good faith claims handling in the context of third-party liability claims. Set forth below is an analysis of the Bannon v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. and Harvey v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. decisions. Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP attorneys Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis and Ashley Kellgren Mr. Kiernan may be contacted at mkiernan@tlsslaw.com Ms. Curtis may be contacted at lcurtis@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kellgren may be contacted at akellgren@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

September 10, 2014 — Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract. In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---