SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Can Businesses Resolve Construction Disputes Outside of Court?

August 19, 2024 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
Time is of the essence in any construction project. So, if a dispute arises at any point, business owners generally wish to avoid the chance of a time-consuming case going to court. Can California construction businesses manage these disputes effectively outside of court? It is possible in some cases. Business owners should carefully consider these three steps. 1. Go Back to the Contract Even if the contract is at the center of the dispute, it is important to refer to any details regarding dispute resolution included within the document. It is common for contracts to have some form of a dispute resolution clause. In such a case, both parties should follow the steps outlined in that agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

---

Defining Constructive Acceleration

March 22, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to the definition of “constructive acceleration,” the case of Fraser Const. Co. v. U.S., 384 F.3d 1354 (Fed.Cir. 2004) is a cited case and contains an instructive definition, quoted below, for proving a constructive acceleration claim. In a nutshell, a constructive acceleration claim is when the contractor incurs added costs for trying to complete the contract on time when it should be provided extensions of time to perform based on excusable delay (i.e., delay not caused by the contractor). These added costs could be bringing in additional supervision to manage the work, adding manpower to perform the work, working overtime, working weekends, adding more shift work, stacking trades, etc. However, just because a contractor claims they have been constructively accelerated does not make it so. The contractor has to actually ask for an extension of time based on an excusable delay and the owner either denied the extension or unreasonably sat on the request for an extension of time; thus, the contractor incurred significant costs to accelerate in order to finish the project on time because it was deprived of a requested time extension for excusable delay. 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

---

New Index Tracking Mortgages for New Homes

June 18, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing reported that the Mortage Bankers Association (MBA) completed their Builder Application Survey (BAS), which demonstrated that “mortgage applications for new home purchases decreased by a not seasonally adjusted monthly rate of 8.4% in May 2014. However, on a 12-month basis, mortgage applications for new home purchases in May 2014 were 4.9% higher than their level in May 2013.” According to Eye on Housing, “This is the fifth consecutive month of year-over-year increases in mortgage applications for new home purchases.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

April 01, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
Last week, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, was tasked with evaluating the enforceability of provisions in home purchase contracts containing alternative pre-litigation procedures which differ from the standard Right to Repair Act procedures. The Court of Appeal, in McCaffrey v. Superior Court of Fresno, et al. ultimately upheld the contractual provisions, and in overturning the trial court's decision, preserved the rights of builders to contract around certain requirements set forth in the Right to Repair Act. The McCaffrey Group, Inc. constructed single-family homes in a Fresno development. Plaintiffs consisted of 24 homeowners within the development who brought suit against McCaffrey for construction defects in their homes. The homeowners were comprised of three categories: (1) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey before January 1, 2003 and had a 2001 version of McCaffrey's contract; (2) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey on or after January 1, 2003 and signed a 2003 version of McCaffrey's contract; and (3) the subsequent purchasers who did not buy their homes directly from McCaffrey, but purchased their homes subject to either the 2001 or 2003 version of McCaffrey's home purchase agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

March 28, 2018 — Neal Philip – Insurance Law Blog
As previously reported in this blog, Washington case law generally affords insureds a broad right to the discovery of claim file materials, including information that should be protected from disclosure by attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine. Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P. 3d 239 (2013). The discovery pitfalls created by Cedell were on full display in a recent Western District of Washington decision that granted an insured’s motion to compel production of work product and attorney/client communications from an insurer’s claims file. Westridge Townhomes Owners Ass’n v. Great American Assur. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27960 (W.D. Wash. February 21, 2018) The background facts are somewhat unclear, but it appears that the insured in this case made a claim for coverage under two insurance policies and there was an allegedly inadequate response from the insurers. The insured sued its insurers for coverage in 2016 before the insurers issued a declination of coverage letter. The two insurers retained the same attorney to represent them, and that attorney subsequently wrote a declination letter on behalf of the insurers, which was sent to the insured on April 12, 2017. The insured ultimately sought production of the entire claim file, which had not been split between the claim investigation and the coverage litigation. The insurers argued, among other things, that the insured was not entitled to anything after the litigation commenced in 2016 on work product grounds, and certainly was not entitled to communications with their attorney. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Neal Philip, Gordon, Reese, Scully, & Mansukhani
Mr. Philip may be contacted at nphilip@grsm.com

---

When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

December 01, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) can and often does apply to residential construction. The transaction between a residential contractor and an homeowner has been held to fall under the consumer transaction language of the VCPA and on occasion been used to avoid the issues with the economic loss doctrine in Virginia. However, there are limits to how far down the contractual chain the VCPA applies, particularly in the case where a supplier or subcontractor does not provide the services or materials for a personal, consumer purpose. An example of this fact is found in the case of Johnston v. Stephan. In that case, a couple hired a general contractor to build a home and the general contractor hired Cole Roofing System, Inc. to provide the roof of the home. The first couple subsequently sold the home and the second homeowners sought further work on the roof from Cole Roofing. After Cole Roofing refused further work, the homeowners brought an action seeking to enforce a warranty and for a violation of the VCPA. For the warranty claim, the homeowners relied on the contract between them and the prior homeowners that referenced a 10 year warranty on the roof and the subcontract between the homebuilder and Cole Roofing. Cole Roofing sought dismissal of the VCPA and warranty claims by demurrer and further sought by demurrer to have the matter dismissed as being filed after the running of the statute of limitations. 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

---

AEM Pursuing ISO Standard for Earthmoving Grade-Control Data

March 09, 2020 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
Citing the growing and increasingly crowded field of grade-control systems and site-layout technology, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) announced on Feb. 18 that it is working with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) on a common standard for grade-control data sharing. Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

March 22, 2018 — Michael Sams and Amanda Cox – Construction Executive, A publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All Rights Reserved.
Here’s a helpful comparison of and analysis of some important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions). While not intended to be all inclusive, this summary comparison of the contract documents will run as a three-part series. Part I covers Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part II will cover Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

• What assurances are there that the owner can pay for the project?

• The Contractor should have the right to request and obtain proof that the Owner has funding sufficient to pay for the Work. The provision should also provide that the Contractor may terminate the Contract if the Owner refuses to allow a review of funding documents, or should the Contractor reasonably determine that the Owner does not have sufficient funds to pay for the Work.

Relevant Sections:

• A201 2007 Section 2.2.1; 2017 Section 2.2.1-2.2.2 A201

• 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs 200: Section 4.2

AIA:

• Section 2.2.1 A201 2007 & 2017: Both editions require the Owner, upon Contractor’s written request, to provide, “reasonable evidence that the Owner has made financial arrangements to fulfill the Owner’s obligations under the Contract.” Thereafter, the Contractor may only request such evidence if (1) the Owner fails to make payments; (2) a change in the Work materially changes the Contract Sum; or (3) the Contractor identifies in writing a reasonable concern regarding the Owner’s ability to make payment when due. If the Owner does not comply, the Contractor may stop work.

• Additionally, A201 2017 Section 2.2.2 awards costs to the Contractor for demobilization and remobilization.

Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Mr. Sams may be contacted at mpsams@KandSlegal.com Ms. Cox may be contacted at ajcox@KandSlegal.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---