Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022

December 27, 2021 — Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & Fears
Gov. Gavin Newsom closed California’s 2020-2021 Legislative Session with a flurry of bill signings, many of which created and/or updated employment-related laws. A few of these bills were “emergency bills” which became effective immediately (such as the COVID-related right to rehire and sick pay laws), while others do not become effective until Jan. 1, 2022. Employers should ensure that their policies, procedures, and systems comply with these new and updated laws. California’s Regulation of Quotas in Warehouse Distribution Centers On Sept. 22, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 701, aimed at regulating quotas in warehouse distribution centers, into law. Effective Jan. 1, 2022, employers with 100 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state must provide to each nonexempt employee, upon hire, or by Jan. 31, 2022, a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject. This bill also sets certain standards for what constitutes an enforceable quota and for the employer’s obligation to respond to information requests. Employers should carefully review their quota systems to first determine if the quotas are necessary, and if so, ensure compliance with this new law by preparing clear written descriptions for each and every quota. A more in-depth discussion of the provisions of the AB 701 can be found here. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Year and a Half Old Las Vegas VA Emergency Room Gets Rebuilt

March 07, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Less than two years have passed since the billion dollar Las Vegas VA Medical Center construction was completed, and “earthmovers have begun churning the site again, this time to expand the hospital’s emergency room because the existing one is inadequate,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The new emergency room project is estimated to cost $16 million. The current emergency room’s design is flawed. “VA officials this week couldn’t explain why the ambulance parking area was designed to be roughly 50 yards from the emergency room’s south entrance, a distance that adds critical seconds to a lifesaving situation,” reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Furthermore, VA officials did not confirm “who drew up the flawed design” or who “was responsible for checking the blueprints.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal also reported that another reason for the expansion is that the current emergency room is too small. A VA spokesman had told the journal that “the emergency room ‘was built based on the workload and the funding that was available at the time,’” yet the journal pointed out that “the number of potential veterans projected to use the center” has remained constant. 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

Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

December 27, 2021 — Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In a win for policyholders, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling, which held that the duty to indemnify follows the duty to defend where a settlement precludes a determination on the facts of the case relative to liability and apportionment. In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.,1 a large concrete panel collapsed and killed a construction worker at a construction site in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. Cost Company (“Cost”), Liberty Mutual’s insured, was a masonry subcontractor on the project and had further subcontracted with Pittsburgh Flexicore Co. (“Flexicore”), Penn National’s insured, for the concrete panels. Cost’s subcontract agreement required Flexicore to name Cost as an additional insured under its general liability policy issued by Penn National. When the construction worker’s widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Cost and Flexicore, Cost demanded that Penn National defend and indemnify it as an additional insured under the policy. Penn National refused, arguing that any additional insured status had terminated at the conclusion of Flexicore’s work for Cost. As a result, Liberty Mutual defended Cost in the lawsuit, which was ultimately settled. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com

Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

November 04, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The Federal Miller Act is a great tool that subcontractors and suppliers on Federal projects can use for collection of wrongfully withheld amounts due. However, as a recent federal case from the Eastern District of Virginia points out, the construction contract’s terms affect when a subcontractor or supplier can use this great collection tool and how much it can recover. In Aarow v Travelers the Court looked at the interaction between a typical termination clause, a “pay when paid” clause, and the Miller Act. The key facts are these. The general contractor on the project at issue, Syska, did not get paid some disputed amounts by the owner and subsequently did not pay Aarow, the plaintiff and a subcontractor on the project. Aarow then refused to continue work and was terminated by Syska who then took over the completion of the work. Aarow sued, seeking damages for the value of its work prior to the termination. Travellers, the surety defended stating that, if Aarow was properly terminated for cause by Syska, then Aarow was not entitled to payment under the contract until such time as the work was completed and accepted by the owner. The termination clauses are set out in the linked opinion. The Court agreed with Travelers, stating that the pay when paid clause created a situation whereby Aarow could not stop work merely because of a non-payment by Syska attributed to non-payment by the owner. The Court was clear in stating that the Miller Act trumps “pay when paid” in instances where the only cause for non-payment is non-payment by an owner. The Court then reasoned that it is the interaction between the termination and “pay when paid” provisions, and not the “pay when paid” clause itself, that exonerated Travelers because it created the default by Aarow due to its refusal to continue work. In short, Aarow was properly terminated for cause because it left the job without justification and therefore Travelers was not liable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Settlement Reached on Troubled Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas

November 16, 2023 — Daniel Tyson - Engineering News-Record
A $400-million settlement was reached between the Texas Dept. of Transportation and general contractor Flatiron/Dragados over Corpus Christi’s Harbor Bridge in mid-October. The accord ends all disagreements and damage claims concerning the cable-stayed bridge, a project halted multiple times. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Tyson, Engineering News-Record Mr. Tyson may be contacted at tysond@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oracle Sues Procore, Claims Theft of Trade Secrets for ERP Integration

November 25, 2024 — Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-Record
Oracle, Inc., has sued Procore in federal court in Northern California, accusing the construction management platform provider of stealing confidential information related to developing enterprise resource planning products for contractors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s One, Two… Eight Strikes: You’re Out!”

May 28, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
In a matter handled by this writer and the Phelps firm for various insurance companies, the insurers sought to be extricated from a $51,000,000+ arbitration and prevailed, securing a preliminary injunction from a federal district court in New Orleans. The dispute centers on the contract between the designer for the new terminal facility at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport and a claim by the airport board against the designer team as well as the insurers for the designers. The principal design contract – to which the insurers were not parties – contains an arbitration clause. The airport board initiated an American Arbitration Association arbitration against the designers and their insurers, and the insurers sought relief from the court. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES