Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Should a Subcontractor provide bonds to a GC who is not himself bonded? (Bonding Agent Perspective)

May 03, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Guest Post Friday is back, and for this week, Construction Law Musings welcomes Steve Moore. Steve has been the Construction & Surety Manager for Towne Insurance Agency-Invincia, in Chesterfield, VA since 2010. Steve’s experience in the Virginia surety bonding marketplace started in 1985 with USF&G. His underwriting travels took him from USF&G to starting National Grange Mutual’s mid-Atlantic bond department over Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, North & South Carolina, to being Reliance Surety’s “Firemark” bond manager in Virginia. Reliance was purchased by Travelers, where Steve continued to grow the surety book of business and build expertise and relationships. Experience with Travelers and Zurich had Steve handling surety bonds for some of Virginia’s largest and best-of-class contractors. Recently, he was contracted by the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office to serve as a contract surety expert witness on behalf of the state. He is a 1985 graduate of Virginia Tech with double-major B.S. degrees in Finance and Marketing. Today, Steve has business and relationships with Travelers, The Hartford, Westfield, CNA, CBIC, Selective, Liberty Mutual, Ohio Casualty, Cincinnati, and many other companies. Steve’s strong foundation of insurance knowledge and in bonding principles and practices allow him to serve as a great resource for his clients. An old Aesop fable comes to mind when I am asked whether a Sub should bond to an unbonded GC:

"A woodsman entered the forest and asked the trees to give him a handle made of the best wood. After giving the woodsman a stave of hickory, the forest watched the woodsman fashion an axe onto the handle. In a flash, the woodsman began to chop down the various oaks and maples in the forest. The oak then said to a pine, “It serves us right, since we gave our adversary the very thing that contributes to our doom…"

When a subcontractor client of mine asks about bonding to an un-bonded general contractor, a number of questions immediately come to mind. Why isn’t the GC bonded? What is the existing relationship between the GC and Sub? How well is the job financed? While wanting to help my subcontractor procure work, and surely enjoying the commissions from writing a bond, I also want to help my sub client manage unforeseen risk. What are the risks to a sub, when posting a bond to an unbonded GC? 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

AI Systems and the Real Estate Industry

April 03, 2023 — Robert G. Howard & Craig A. de Ridder - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems captured considerable attention with the release of a large language chatbot, ChatGPT, by OpenAI, in November of last year. On March 14, OpenAI unveiled GPT-4, a more powerful “multimodal” chatbot responding to both text and images. And, on March 21, Google launched its conversational computer program, Bard, to compete with GPT-4. These chatbots allow users to initiate detailed queries or requests and receive prompt responses in complete sentences. Users are not forced to scroll through a list of results like those produced by search engines and follow-up questions can be asked. AI systems have been touted for many years and these new breakthroughs may drastically change the way that we create content. Notwithstanding their unprecedented capabilities, AI systems can produce imperfect results. New chatbots, for example, can generate plausible-sounding but nonsensical, biased or false responses. Accordingly, heavy fact-checking is necessary. OpenAI has warned that ChatGPT is prone to filling in replies with incorrect data if there is not enough information available on the topic on the internet. Bard includes a website disclaimer that it “may display inaccurate or offensive information that doesn’t represent Google’s views.” On March 20, a breach at OpenAI allowed users to see other people’s chat histories before the service was shut down. Further, there is a real risk that courts will rule that certain content generated by these systems infringes the copyright or database rights of the owner of the materials and data that the technologies relied on. When entering into agreements with AI software providers, companies should also be concerned about other risks, including misappropriation of data, security, confidentiality, privacy and third-party claims. Reprinted courtesy of Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and Craig A. de Ridder, Pillsbury Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Mr. de Ridder may be contacted at craig.deridder@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

March 12, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
Colorado’s new procedure for interlocutory appeals has its limits. In the recent decision of Rich v. Ball Ranch Partnership, ___ P.3d ___, 2014 COA 6 (2015), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that Appellate Rule 4.2 does not permit interlocutory review of questions of law in “garden-variety” or “run-of-the-mill” contract disputes. This resolves a subtle question that has been lingering since Colorado first created the interlocutory appeal process four years ago. Prior to 2011, Colorado did not permit civil litigants to seek appellate review prior to final judgment, except in a small handful of situations. As I discussed in an article at the time, this changed with the passage of C.R.S. § 13-4-102.1 and the adoption of Rule 4.2, which granted the court of appeals discretion to permit the immediate appeal of certain district court orders. These provisions allowed parties to seek interlocutory review of orders before the conclusion of a case if a district court could certify that (1) immediate review might promote a more orderly disposition or establish a final disposition of the litigation, and (2) the order involved a controlling and unresolved question of law. The rule was patterned after 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides similar relief in the federal courts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com

Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that “non-contracting parties may bring negligence claims for construction defects because such claims are not barred by the economic loss doctrine,” as Richard Erikson writes in a Snell & Wilmer Legal Alert. In the case of Sullivan v. Pulte Home, Pulte had built the home in 2000. The original buyer sold it to the Sullivans in 2003. The Sullivans discovered construction defects in a retaining wall in 2009. The lost their original lawsuit, but the appeals court found that if the Sullivans filed within two years of finding the damage, they could sue. The case then progressed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Erikson points out that in an amicus brief, a number of parties in the Arizona homebuilding industry argued that “the appellate court’s ruling was commercially irreconcilable with expectations of builders, homeowners, homebuyers, engineers and architects in the construction industry.” Nevertheless, the Sullivans prevailed at court. Erikson asks what the actual limit on construction defects must be, given that the court found for plaintiffs who discovered construction defects nine years after the home was built. “How many years after the builder finishes a home does it have to plan on defending defect claims—10, 20, 30 years?” He proposes that the Arizona legislature needs to clarify the specific limits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Allied Framers, Inc. v. Golden Bear Insurance Company. Allied had been sued in a construction defect case and its primary insurer had become insolvent. Coverage for Allied’s defense was paid for by the California Insurance Guarantee Association through June 8, 2006. When warned that CIGA’s involvement was ending, Allied notified Golden Bear, which declined to provide coverage.

In the matters that followed, Golden Bear claimed that Allied had not exhausted its $1 million in primary insurance. Allied then showed that $1 million had already been paid out in the case. A few months thereafter, Golden Bear offered a $500,000 settlement on behalf of Allied which was rejected. Thereafter, Golden Bear hired new counsel to defend Allied. Golden Bear received, but allegedly did not pay, invoices Allied sent from their former counsel. Golden Bear finally settled the construction defect case for $2 million.

Allied’s original counsel sued Allied for payment. Golden Bear declined coverage. Allied then claimed that Golden Bear liable on several counts, arising from its failure to settle the construction defect action earlier than it did and its failure to pay Allied’s counsel. Golden Bear demurred, arguing that Allied had now exhausted is coverage with the $2 million settlement. The lower court sustained Golden Bear’s demurrer, dismissing Allied’s complaints.

The appeal court reviewed Allied’s seven complaints and sustained most of them. However, the court did reverse the trial court’s order in regard to Allied’s complaint that Golden Bear breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The appeals court was not convinced that Golden Bear properly evaluated the settlement demand in the underlying construction defect case. The court found three other ways in which Golden Bear’s actions might show bad faith, in refusing to pay defense fees “after promising [Allied] such costs would be paid in full,” “failing to advise Allied about ‘actual or potential negative consequences of agreeing to the proposed settlement,’” and that their choice of counsel “failed to protect [Allied’s] interests in the negotiation.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

December 04, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Back in February, I discussed a case relating to indemnity and ambiguity. The opinion in that case, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al., allowed a breach of contract and indemnity claim to move forward despite the fact that conflicting term sheets between the plaintiff and defendant could have been read to violate Virginia law by requiring indemnity for English’s own negligence. In other words, the ambiguity worked in English’s favor (though that is not something to count on). The Court did not however address whether there was any negligence on English’s part and if there was, what was the contractual effect. I’ll bet you were wondering what happened later in that case. Well, here’s the answer. In a subsequent opinion, the Court looked at the same ambiguous and conflicting term sheets between and among those defendants that were required to provide quality assurance services for the construction of a bridge in western Virginia. For the full procedural and factual analysis, be sure to read the full memorandum opinion linked above. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

AI AEC Show: Augmenta Gives Designers Superpowers

December 31, 2024 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In this episode of the AI AEC Show, host Aarni Heiskanen interviews Aaron Szymanski and Francesco Iorio, the visionary founders of Augmenta, to explore how generative AI is revolutionizing design. Augmenta’s platform gives designers superpowers by automating complex workflows, doubling productivity, and enabling better, faster decision-making. Discover the fascinating origin story of Augmenta, born from the intersection of industrial design frustration and cutting-edge AI research. Aaron and Francesco share how their backgrounds in manufacturing, design, and technology led them to tackle inefficiencies in the construction industry—starting with electrical raceway design. They reveal how their AI-powered tools save time and optimize designs for cost, sustainability, and constructability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment

October 27, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
I have a judgment against another entity. Now what? I want to briefly talk about this “now what?” in the context of the recent decision in MYD Marine Distributor, Inc. v. International Paint, Ltd., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2364a (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Although this case is not a construction case, it poses an interesting issue for any entity that has a judgment entered against it (known as the judgment debtor) while it is contemporaneously the plaintiff and pursuing monetary damages in an unrelated case or cases. This case also presents an avenue for any judgment creditor to pursue in the event other post-judgment collection efforts are unsuccessful. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES