Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors

March 23, 2020 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
President Trump has promoted his campaign agenda—bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States (especially jobs relating or pertaining to the steel industry.) To do this, he has strengthened domestic preferences through the Buy America and Buy American Acts.[1] 1. Buy America Act: The Buy America Act refers to a collection of domestic contract restrictions pertaining to the U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration projects (highway, mass transit and other transportation projects). The USDOT grants provided to state and local governments prohibit the federal government from obligating funds unless the steel, iron and manufactured products used in the projects are produced in the U.S. Generally, Buy America applies to projects where USDOT provides part of the funding, applies to steel, iron and manufactured products, and requires that “all manufacturing processes, including application of a coating, for these materials…occur in the United States.”

Buy American: Buy American is critical for construction contractors because FAR 52.225-9 requires that all federal construction contracts under approximately $7 million[2] contain a clause which mandates that contractors use “only domestic construction material in performing [the] contract.” [Note: This requirement is not limited to steel and steel products, as the Buy America Act is.]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

June 11, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Lexology, Amy Kuo Alexander of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP analyzed recent decisions involving California’s Right to Repair Act, SB 800. According to Alexander, “SB 800, applies to all new residential construction sold after January 1, 2003” and “[i]t establishes a process to resolve certain construction defect claims prior to the filing of any lawsuit by a homeowner of new residential construction.” Alexander’s three main discussion points include “SB 800 is Not the Exclusive Remedy,” “Notice Requirements to Builder Under SB 800,” and “Parties Can Opt Out of SB 800 to Adopt Their Own Prelitigation Procedure So Long as the Terms Are Not Unconscionable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Caterpillar Forecast Tops Estimates as Construction Recovers

January 28, 2014 — Shruti Date Singh – Bloomberg
Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), the largest maker of mining and construction equipment, forecast earnings and revenue for 2014 that topped analysts’ estimates as the recovery in the U.S. building industry spurs sales of bulldozers and excavators. Sales will be about $56 billion plus or minus 5 percent, the company said in a statement today. The average of 13 estimates compiled by Bloomberg was $55.5 billion. Profit will be $5.85 a share excluding $400 million to $500 million in restructuring costs. That’s more than the $5.77 average estimate. Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar also said it approved a $10 billion share buyback plan through 2018 and will repurchase about $1.7 billion in stock in the first quarter that will complete its previous authorization. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shruti Date Singh, Bloomberg
Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh28@bloomberg.net

Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

January 11, 2021 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Auburn Woods HOA v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 56 Cal.App.5th 717 (October 28,2020) (certified for partial publication), the California Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) regarding a lawsuit for breach of contract and bad faith brought by Auburn Woods Homeowners Association (“HOA”) and property manager, Frei Real Estate Services (“FRES”) against State Farm and the HOA’s broker, Frank Lewis. The parties’ dispute arose out of the tender of two different lawsuits filed against the HOA and FRES by Marva Beadle (“Beadle”). The first lawsuit was filed by Beadle as the owner of a condominium unit against the HOA and FRES for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an accounting related to amounts allegedly owed by Beadle to the HOA as association fees. The second lawsuit filed by Beadle was for the purpose of setting aside a foreclosure sale, cancelling the trustee’s deed and quieting title, and for an accounting and injunctive relief against an unlawful detainer action filed by Sutter Group, LP against Beadle. The complaint filed in the second lawsuit alleged that Allied Trustee Services caused Beadle’s property to be sold at auction and that Sutter Capital Group, LP purchased the unit and obtained a trustee’s deed upon sale. Beadle claimed the assessments against her were improper and the trustee’s deed upon sale was wrongfully executed. Beadle sought an order restoring possession of her unit and damages. The HOA and FRES tendered both lawsuits to State Farm. As respects the first lawsuit, State Farm denied coverage of the lawsuit based on the absence of alleged “damages” covered by the policy issued to the HOA affording liability and directors and officers (“D&O”) coverages. State Farm agreed to defend the HOA under the D&O coverage in the second lawsuit. However, State Farm denied coverage of FRES in both lawsuits as it did not qualify as an insured under the State Farm policy issued to the HOA. Subsequently, the HOA and FRES filed an action against State Farm arguing that a duty to defend was triggered under its policy for the first lawsuit and a duty to defend FRES was also owed under the D&O policy for the second lawsuit. After a bench trial, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm based on the failure of the first lawsuit to allege damages covered by the State Farm policy under the liability and D&O coverages afforded by the policy. As respects the second lawsuit, the trial court held that FRES did not qualify as an insured and State Farm did not act in bad faith by refusing to pay the HOA’s alleged defense costs in the second lawsuit before it agreed to defend the HOA against such lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

January 08, 2024 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Strategist
In Okla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Omega Flex, Inc., No. CIV-22-18-D, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197755, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (the District Court) determined spoliation sanctions were not warranted after a home was demolished for repair following a joint scene examination. The insurer, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer) provided a policy of insurance to Michael and Sondra Diel (the Diels). On July 11, 2020, the Diels’ home was struck by lightning and their attic caught fire. Following the loss, Insurer retained both counsel and fire origin and cause experts to inspect the Diels’ property. Insurer’s counsel informed in-house counsel for Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) via a letter dated July 14, 2020, that a preliminary investigation indicated the fire may have been caused by an Omega Flex product—specifically, TracPipe Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing (CSST). Insurer’s counsel invited Omega Flex to inspect the property, noting: “It is anticipated that the loss will exceed $300,000” and stating that any inspection “must be completed during the next two weeks. At that time, the homeowner will proceed with demolition to rebuild.” (Emphasis added). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

Federal Interpleader Dealing with Competing Claims over Undisputed Payable to Subcontractor

September 28, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
What do you do if you are holding undisputed money owed to a subcontractor? Well, you make an effort to pay it or tender it! Right? I am never a fan of a client holding undisputed sums without a legitimate contractual basis. There are circumstances, however, where the effort to pay an undisputed payable is not so easy. In fact, it is challenging, as in the below case example where the subcontractor filed for an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (referred to as an “ABC”). An ABC, in a nutshell, allows an insolvent entity to file an insolvency action in state court governed by state law and choose its assignee (versus a federal bankruptcy action governed by federal law where a trustee is appointed). One major difference is that there is no automatic stay in an ABC as there is in a federal bankruptcy action. Thus, the insolvent entity can still be sued, but, while that entity is in an ABC, there are many creditors that will not be able to enforce a judgment. (See Florida Statute Ch. 727). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Lloyd Whann, an executive in M. M. Parrish Construction, a Gainesville, Florida firm, is going to trial over claims that he bribed a school district official with more than $50,000 in gifts. The trial has been pushed to March of 2012, in order for his defense to review documents.

Bob Williams, the former school official, plead guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery. He agreed to testify against Whann and M.M. Parrish Construction.

Read the full story...

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

Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

December 02, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
I’ll bet you’re thinking by now that I have beaten the mediation drum to death and that I wouldn’t have any more praise for the process than I have heaped upon it here at this corner of the construction law “blawgosphere.” Well, just about every time I am involved with the process, whether acting in my capacity as a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, or as counsel to a client seeking to resolve a matter and move on with the business of making money, I become more convinced that mediation can work in even the most contentious of situations. What do I mean by “work?” The obvious answer is that mediation “works” when the parties come up with a solution to their problem. In most instances, the solution involves money changing hands. After all, it is money that is usually the tangible and outwardly driving force behind a dispute. Money is also what a court or arbitrator (in most cases) will be awarding to one side or the other at the end of what is likely to be an expensive process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES