Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
According to the advice provided by T. Allen Mott and Nicholas D. Cowie, condominium boards would be well advised to “hire an engineer or architect to perform a transition study,” since it would be preferable to repair any problems while warranties are still in effect. They also caution that the board must “determine whether the developer-created budget and reserve fund are adequate to cover the cost of maintaining the condominium’s construction over time.” They note that discovered in time, some problems are easy to fix, but left unrepaired, they can result in “extensive, hidden property damage requiring associations to borrow money and assess unit owners to cover the entire cost of repairing the developer’s construction defects and resulting property damage. The goal, as they point out, is “an amicable repair resolution.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

May Heat Wave Deaths Prompt New Cooling Rules in Chicago

July 25, 2022 — The Associated Press (Don Babwin) - Bloomberg
Chicago (AP) -- A month after three women were found dead inside their stifling hot apartments at a Chicago senior housing facility, the City Council on Wednesday passed new cooling requirements for residential buildings. Under the rules approved by the Council's Zoning Committee on Tuesday and the full Council on Wednesday, any new construction of senior facilities and larger residential buildings must include permanent air conditioning, giving them the same requirements already in place for nursing homes. Any time the heat index climbs above 80 degrees, those buildings must run their air conditioning systems. Existing housing for older people can use portable cooling and dehumidification until May 2024, when they will be required to have permanent equipment installed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

September 18, 2018 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The risk that a contractor’s client may refuse to pay the full contract balance is a day-to-day reality for every contractor. That risk – and the stress it causes in the mind of any contractor – is tempered by the knowledge that Washington statutes provide contractors with ready access to the courts to file a lawsuit and be fully compensated for the work performed. But a recent case provides a grim reminder that the same statutes that giveth court access can also taketh away. Washington’s Contractor Registration Act (“WCRA”)[1] requires every contractor engaging or offering to engage in services in Washington to register with the Department of Labor and Industries (”L&I”). In order to sue to collect compensation for work or to enforce a contract, a contractor must prove that he/she “was a duly registered contractor and held a current and valid certificate of registration at the time he or she contracted for the performance of such work or entered into such contract.”[2] In order to conclude that a contractor has substantially comply with these requirements, a court must find that: (1) The department has on file the information required by RCW 18.27.030; (2) the contractor has at all times had in force a current bond or other security as required by RCW 18.27.040; and (3) the contractor has at all times had in force current insurance as required by RCW 18.27.050.[3] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

March 03, 2011 — Gale Holland, Michael Finnegan and Doug Smith, Los Angeles Times

In the latest installment of the “Billions To Spend” series of investigative reports focused on construction defects, management, and cost issues relevant to LACC’s Community College Modernization Projects, the LA Times examines the costs associated with the various layers of construction management and benefits that accrued to contractors with ties to LACC trustees.

The reporting by the Times is seemingly critical of the project’s utilization of “body shops” an industry term for companies that function as employers of record. The article segment published today cites a number of circumstances wherein their utilization appears to have escalated costs substantially.

“To gauge the cost of the staffing system, The Times reviewed thousands of pages of financial records from April 2007, when URS began managing the program, to July 2010. Reporters identified two dozen contractors serving as conduits for pay and benefits for employees they did not supervise.

At least 230 people were employed in this manner, at a total cost of about $40 million, the records show.

Approximately $18 million of the total was paid to the employees, according to the Times analysis. The remaining $22 million went to profit and overhead for contractors, the records indicate.

For employees on its own payroll, the district says that medical and other benefits increase compensation costs 40% above base salaries. So if the district had employed its construction staff directly, the total cost for the period studied would have been $25 million instead of $40 million, a savings of $15 million, The Times calculated.”

Read Full Story...

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

Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

May 10, 2021 — Rip Rapson - Bloomberg
American cities stand at a precipice. Burdened by an overwhelming public health crisis, drained of resources by economic stagnation and torn apart by racial injustice and unrest, cities are confronting the reality that conventional formulas of municipal finance and practices of working cannot sustain our urban places. The significance of this moment was not lost on the Biden-Harris administration, which quickly advanced an ambitious mandate commensurate with the challenge: a domestic Marshall Plan called Build Back Better. Already, the first prong — the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan — has helped shore up city budgets, restore desperately needed funding for public transportation and keep businesses open and families in homes. The second leg, the $2 trillion American Jobs Plan, represents a bold shift from short-term recovery to long-term transformation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rip Rapson, Bloomberg

A Court-Side Seat: An End-of-Year Environmental Update

January 09, 2023 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
As 2022 draws to a close, here is a brief description of recent environmental and regulatory law rulings, as well as new federal rulemaking proceedings. United States Tax Court

Green Valley Investors, LLC et al, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue On November 9, 2022, the Tax Court agreed with the taxpayers that the IRS’s use of administrative Notice 2017-10 to impose substantial tax liabilities violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The notice was the agency’s response to a provision in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 which increased the penalties for engaging in a reportable transaction understatement. Here, at issue was the value of charitable deductions generated by the creation of environmental easements made in connection with land transactions. These claimed deductions amounted to more than $60 million. The petitioners argued that IRS Notice 2017-10, which authorized such large penalties, was in fact a “legislative rule” whose promulgation should have complied with the notice and comment requirements of the APA. The agency contended that the Congress, by implication, absolved the IRS from the notice and comment requirements. The court agreed with the petitioners and set aside Notice 2017-10 and the imposition of penalties under Section 6662A of the Jobs Creation Act. On December 8, 2022, the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would correct the APA deficiencies noted by the courts. (See 87 FR 75185.)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant

April 19, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida Statute s. 542.335 is a statute that deals with restrictive covenants in contracts that impose a restraint on trade. It is an important statute to determine invalid restraints on trade that unreasonably or unfairly prevent competition. Any invalid restraint on trade is unenforceable. Restrictive covenants–or covenants in agreements that restrict you or prevent you from doing something–may unsuspectingly be included in contracts or the impact of the restrictive covenant may not be appreciated at the onset. A party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant in a contract has the additional burden of PROVING the validity and reasonableness of the restrictive covenant:

Under section 542.335, three requirements must be satisfied for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable: (1) the restrictive covenant must be “set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought”; (2) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant”; and (3) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction.”

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

Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

September 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com