Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

August 02, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As a construction company from outside of Virginia that wants to work here in the Commonwealth, there are numerous “hoops” that you need to jump through to be able to perform work and most importantly get paid. Among these are obtaining a Virginia contractors license, find a registered agent here in Virginia, hopefully find a local construction lawyer to help with your contracts, and (the subject of this post), register with the Virginia State Corporation Commission for the authority to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Aside from it being a requirement of state law, the real world consequence of failing to register to do business is that, while you could file a lawsuit to enforce a claim (such as a mechanic’s lien), failure to register could cost you the ability to enforce or obtain any judgment on that lien. In other words, you could go through the costly litigation process, “win” and then be barred from any recovery simply because you did not follow this step. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Res Judicata Not Apply to Bar Overlapping Damages in Separate Suits Against Contractor and Subcontractor

November 06, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Can the doctrine of res judicata bar an owner’s claim against the general contractor after the owner also sued and obtained a satisfied judgment against the subcontractor when there are identical, overlapping damages pursued in separate lawsuits. A recent case says, not really. In Pickell v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D2037a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), a homeowner sued a homebuilder and the homebuilder’s mechanical subcontractor in separate lawsuits. The claims and damages asserted in the separate lawsuits were substantially identical. The homeowner obtained a judgment against the mechanical subcontractor which was satisfied (i.e., paid). The homebuilder tried to use this as a get-out-jail-free card and claimed the homeowner was barred from suing it under the doctrine of res judicata based on overlapping claims and damages.

“To successfully assert a defense of res judicata, a party must prove four “identities”: “(1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.” Pickell, supra (citation omitted).

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

Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

October 30, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s the classic tale of two cities. One city is occupied by architects and engineers. The other, by contractors. And while the cities typically co-exist relatively peacefully together, at times, they do not, such as when a defect arises that can either be a design or construction defect. Sometimes, project owners are pulled into these fights as well. There is a common law rule that when contracting with a contractor the owner impliedly warrants to the contractor that the plans and specifications are sufficiently accurate and correct. And, if you work on local public works projects, you may be familiar with Public Contract Code section 1104 which provides that, with the exception of design-build projects, local public entities cannot require a bidder to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of architectural or engineering plans and specifications. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Employee Screening and Testing in the Covid-19 Era: Getting Back to Work

August 10, 2020 — Aaron C. Schlesinger & Shannon D. Azzaro - Peckar & Abramson
Currently Available Workplace Protocols for Employers Employers seeking to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the workplace should consider from among the three currently available protocols: Written Questionnaires; Temperature Checks; and Viral or Diagnostic Testing. When implementing a screening or testing protocol, employers should explain the following in writing to employees: (1) the specific screening process or test utilized by the employer; (2) employee compliance expectations and any consequences for a refusal to participate; (3) how employee privacy will be protected; (4) if screening, the general benchmarks that indicate the employee has “passed” (e.g., temperature below 100.4ºF, per CDC guidelines); and (5) the outcome of an unsuccessful screen or test (e.g., being sent home from the workplace). Employers must also ensure that those administering the screening and/or testing are properly trained, and that appropriate written acknowledgements are obtained from employees consenting to the applicable protocol. Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson and Shannon D. Azzaro, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Azzaro may be contacted at sazzaro@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The owners of Oceana Apartments are suing Shentel Cable Co. and their subcontractors, CCI Systems, Inc. and Big Dog Communications, over the damage caused when a cherry picker rolled downhill and smacked into the building. Kenneth Benn, an employee of Big Dog Communications, was installing utility wire when the cherry picker started moving. The suit alleges that Mr. Benn either failed to properly apply the brakes or immobilize the vehicle before staring work. Mr. Benn is also named as a defendant in the suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

March 07, 2011 — Steven M. Cvitanovic

Contractors should always be sure that they understand the licensing in any Subcontract or Prime Contract before entering into any agreement. However, on March 3, 2011, in the case of Pacific Casson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros., Inc. 2011 Cal.App.Lexis 236, the Court of Appeal determined that if a specialty license is subsumed within another license, the specialty license may not be required.

Bernards entered into a subcontract with Pacific to excavate, backfill, grade and provide geotechnical design parameters for a hospital. The Prime Contract required the bidder to maintain a Class C-12 specialty earthwork license. However, Pacific only held a Class A general engineering license which it turns out was suspended during the performance of the work. Pacific sued Bernards for nonpayment of $544,567, but the lawsuit was dismissed because the trial court found that Pacific (1) lacked a C-12 license, and (2) Pacific’s Class A license was suspended for failure to pay an unrelated judgment. Pacific was also ordered to disgorge $206,437 in prior payments.

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeal agreed with Pacific and held that a C-12 specialty license was not required despite the Prime Contract. The Court of Appeal found that the C-12 specialty license would have been “superfluous” since it was fully encompassed within the Class A requirements. However, the Court of Appeal also remanded the case for further

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.

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

Construction Contracts Need Amending Post COVID-19 Shutdowns

October 19, 2020 — Richard P. Higgins - Construction Executive
No one could have expected the coronavirus pandemic in the beginning of 2020. True, there were rumblings about a sickness in China that was highly contagious and infecting many people. Death tolls began rising as the world watched in disbelieve. After all, this is 2020. This is not supposed to happen. We should have been able to control the spread of the virus, but we could not. COVID-19 quickly spread throughout the world causing havoc and economic despair. While some sectors of the construction industry are not as impacted as others, contractors industry-wide need to consider how COVID-19 will impact their contractual obligations. Depending on what happens and what the government decides to do to stop the spread of the coronavirus, project delays, supply chain distributions, lost productivity and work stoppages may continue for months. All of this will impact the contracts that contractors have with owners. Contractors may not be able to preform according to the terms of the contract through no fault of their own. Owners may no longer qualify for the financing needed to pay for the project. FORCE MAJEURE According to Investopedia, “force majeure refers to a clause that is included in contracts to remove liability for natural and unavoidable catastrophes that interrupt the expected course of events and prevent participants from fulfilling obligations.” Reprinted courtesy of Richard P. Higgins, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Higgins may be contacted at Richard.Higgins@MCC-CPAs.com

Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

July 31, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On the heels of a recent order regarding coverage under a Comprehensive General Insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”), builders should be very wary of CGL policies providing no coverage for property damage. On January 8, 2013, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mt. Hawley. The order states that the subject insurance policies issued by Mt. Hawley to Mountain View Homes II, LLC (“MV Homes”), the builder developer of the Creek Side at Parker development (the “Project”), did not provide coverage for any of the work performed by MV Homes or its subcontractors on the Project. MV Homes originally began construction on the Project in 2002 and completed construction in 2005. MV Homes was insured by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) and Mt. Hawley. In December 2008, Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Association, Inc. (“the HOA”) served notice on MV Homes. The HOA then instituted a construction defect lawsuit on June 1, 2009 against MV Homes and others. MV Homes initially demanded a defense and indemnity from National Fire, which provided a defense. Then, after two years, MV Homes demanded a defense and indemnity from Mt. Hawley in July 2011. Mt. Hawley denied coverage and did not provide a defense. The case was settled soon after, and National Fire reserved or assigned claims against Mt. Hawley. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES