SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?

October 20, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
There is an argument that a performance bond is not liable for delay damages UNLESS the bond specifically allows for the recovery of such damages. Keep this in mind when requiring a performance bond so that the bond covers the associated risks (and damages) you contemplate when requiring the bond. This argument is supported by the Florida Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in American Home Assur. Co. v. Larkin General Hosp., Ltd., 593 So.2d 195, 198 (Fla. 1992):

The language in the performance bond, construed together with the purpose of the bond, clearly explains that the performance bond merely guaranteed the completion of the construction contract and nothing more. Upon default, the terms of the performance bond required American [performance bond surety] to step in and either complete construction or pay Larkin [obligee] the reasonable costs of completion. Because the terms of the performance bond control the liability of the surety, American’s liability will not be extended beyond the terms of the performance bond. Therefore, American cannot be held liable for delay damages.

However, the Eleventh Circuit in National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Const. Co., 320 F.3d 1260(11th Cir. 2003), also analyzing an issue relating to the recoverability of delay-type damages against a performance bond, did not narrowly interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Larkin General Hospital. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Have No Class(ification)”

May 13, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
In fact, you didn’t even have a license. A federal court in Alabama was tasked with determining whether an unlicensed contractor could recover from an Alabama project owner for in excess of $1.7 million in construction infrastructure and site work performed. In fact, the contractor “did not have a valid general contractor’s license” in the state of Alabama when it “assumed work on the project from its predecessor company.” During the course of work on the project, the principals of an original contractor decided to go their separate ways, whereupon one of those principals announced that his new company would take over ongoing work. Roughly two months after the new company began working at the project, the contractor applied for a license with the Alabama Licensing Board of General Contractors – the license was issued within about 45 days. Then, some eight months later, the contractor added a “municipal and utilities” classification to its contractor license. 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

---

Narrow House Has Wide Opposition

January 17, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A small building project on Staten Island is causing some big complaints. While many residents of the area are still dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, residents in the Port Richmond neighborhood are concerned about a house that is being built on a lot that at its widest is only seventeen feet. On the other end, the lot is only eleven feet wide. Initially, the Staten Island did not give permission to build on the Orange Avenue lot, but the developer went to the city’s Board of Standards and Appeals who gave permission. The daughter of one neighbor described the foundation as looking “like a swimming pool, not a house.” Her mother’s house has a 40-foot frontage. Another neighbor (37-foot frontage) described the plans to build the narrow house as “pretty stupid.” Work currently stopped on the building over complaints that the site’s fence was incomplete. After the developer repairs the fence, the site needs to be inspected before work continues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hurricane Ian: Discussing Wind-Water Disputes

October 10, 2022 — Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
“Most of the Florida homes in the path of Hurricane Ian lack flood insurance, posing a major challenge to rebuilding efforts, new data show. In the counties whose residents were told to evacuate, just 18.5 percent of homes have coverage through the National Flood Insurance Program, according to Milliman, an actuarial firm that works with the program.” That’s how a September 29th article on The New York Times website begins. When it comes to insurance coverage for hurricanes, the oft-stated maxim is that homeowner’s policies cover damage caused by wind but not flood waters. Such a low take-up rate for flood insurance policies would seemingly create an incentive for those affected by Hurricane Ian to argue, when feasible, that their property damage, despite appearing to have been caused by flood, was also caused by wind. [And, of course, businesses looking to make business interruption claims, under commercial property policies, will be in the same boat.] Further, even when someone has a homeowner’s policy and a flood policy, there may still be a reason to argue that the loss was caused by wind, as homeowner’s policies often have greater limits than flood policies. [As an important aside, when hurricane damages are covered, homeowner’s policies can have a significant deductible, perhaps up to 10% of a home’s insured value.] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Contractors Must Register with the L&I Prior to Offering or Performing Work, or Risk Having their Breach of Contract Case Dismissed

March 27, 2023 — Jill Guingcangco - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The Washington State Legislature has an interest in protecting the public from “unreliable, fraudulent, financially irresponsible, or incompetent contractors” (RCW 18.27.140), which is why contractors are required to register with the Department of Labor and Industries (“L&I”) before advertising, offering to do work, or performing any work as a contractor. RCW 18.27.020. Accordingly, if a contractor brings an action for the collection of compensation or sues for breach of contract for work they performed, that individual is required to allege and prove that, at the time they performed the work, they were a registered contractor. RCW 18.27.080. In Dobson v. Archibald,1 Dobson worked as a longshoreman, but also simultaneously performed home repair work for pay during her off time. Dobson never registered as a contractor with L&I. Dobson acquired customers for her home repair work through a referral process. Dobson was referred to Archibald through a mutual friend who Dobson performed some home repair work for. Archibald subsequently hired Dobson to refinish the hardwood floors in Archibald’s home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jill Guingcangco, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Guingcangco may be contacted at jill.guingcangco@acslawyers.com

---

Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage

December 30, 2019 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Certificates of insurance are a common tool used in the construction industry to provide proof of insurance coverage. The legal effect of certificates of insurance has been a source of debate in Washington. Insurance companies have argued that certificates of insurance are “informational only” and do not alter the terms of the applicable insurance policy. Insurance companies have taken the position that if a certificate of insurance provides for coverage that is different than what the policy provides, the insurance company is only bound to provide what the policy provides. The Washington State Supreme Court weighed in on this issue in an opinion issued on October 10, 2019, and held that an insurance company is bound by the terms of its certificate of insurance – even if it conflicts with the policy. In T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, Selective’s agent issued a certificate of insurance to “T-Mobile USA, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliates” and stated that those entities were “included as additional insured” under the policy. The certificate of insurance was issued by Selective’s agent when T-Mobile’s contractor purchased an insurance policy from Selective for a cell tower project. The contractor’s agreement for the project was with T-Mobile Northeast – not T-Mobile USA. The contract between T-Mobile Northeast and the contractor stated that T-Mobile Northeast would be an additional insured. The Selective insurance policy stated that any third party would automatically be an additional insured if the contractor was required to name the third party as an additional insured. The contract did not provide that T-Mobile USA would be an additional insured. A property owner damaged by the cell tower project sued T-Mobile USA. T-Mobile USA tendered the claim to Selective. Selective denied the claim because the contract between the contractor and T-Mobile Northeast did not require the contractor to name T-Mobile USA as an additional insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

---

Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

July 16, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Damage to the insureds' property caused by construction undertaken on the adjacent lot was covered under the insureds' property policy. Chubb Indem. Ins Co. v. 21 E. Cedar, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79906 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2014). The insureds' home sustained damage contemporaneous with demolition, excavation, and construction taking place on a adjacent lot. Chubb paid benefits to the insureds for their loss, and then sought to recover as subrogee from the defendants who performed the construction. The defendants argued there was no coverage under Chubb's policy. Faulty planning, construction or maintenance were excluded. An exception to the exclusion stated, however, "we do insure ensuing covered loss unless another exclusion applies." Defendants argued characterizing the damages as ensuing losses was purely semantic and self-serving, designed to involve the ensuing loss provision in order to protect Chubb's coverage determination. Chubb contended the exclusion applied only to the specific property being insured and not to a neighbor's property where work is being performed. Therefore, the faulty construction exclusion did not apply and the ensuing loss provision was triggered. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects

February 27, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Ah, the elusive Lepus Cornutus, commonly known as the Jackalope. Rarely seen, we may have one in SI 59 LLC v. Variel Warner Ventures, LLC, Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B285086 (November 15, 2018), an interesting case involving a developer, a contractor, a general release, and Civil Code section 1688. SI 59 LLC v. Variel Warner Ventures, LLC In 2005, Variel Warner Ventures, LLC (Variel Warner) entered into a construction contract with Verdugo Management & Investment, Inc. (Verdugo) to construct improvements at an 85 unit apartment complex. Under the terms of the contract, Verdugo agreed to construction the improvements in a good and workmanlike manner in strict compliance with all drawings and specifications and to comply with all laws. It didn’t. The work was defectively flashed, counterflashed, and waterproofed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---