Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The lawyers of Little Bulman Medeiros & Whitney PC will be joining Pierce Atwood on December 9, 2013. The combined firm will have a larger construction litigation practice. Little Bulman is already recognized for its handling of construction disputes. Pierce Atwood is one of the largest firms in New England. Their combined forces intended to create a strong presence in construction litigation throughout New England. Gloria Pinza, a managing partner at Pierce Atwood said of Little Bulman that “their exceptional credentials in the construction law area will combine with our strong construction practice to create a regional practice that will provide highly competitive expertise, depth and value throughout New England and beyond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Litigation Roundup: “You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

August 19, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
The foregoing is an accurate statement, generally speaking, for Louisiana public entities. Statutory and constitutional provisions in Louisiana protect public entities from being forced to pay monies – including satisfying court judgments – when the monies have not been specifically allocated for the purpose. Correspondingly, there is ordinarily no means to seize public assets to satisfy judgments. On the other hand, writs of mandamus in Louisiana – actions designed to compel a public official to undertake a ministerial duty over which the public official has no discretion – can be aimed at forcing a public official (on behalf of the public entity) to pay money. In an inverse condemnation case, plaintiffs prevailed on the theory that a Louisiana public entity had “damaged and interfered with their use and enjoyment of their private homes and church” during a New Orleans drainage project. The plaintiffs pursued a writ of mandamus to compel payment their approximately $1.5 million judgment for damages and fees as a “ministerial duty” of the public entity. To be sure, in connection with the judgment, the public entity had not at any time specifically allocated funds for the payment. 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

Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

January 19, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We all know that the contract is king in Virginia. We also know that Virginia will allow for a so called “incorporation” clause that will allow for “flow down” of certain prime contract provisions in a way that will make those provisions applicable to subcontractors. We also know that a claim for breach of contract or other contractual claim does not last forever due to certain statutes of limitation found in the Code of Virginia. What happens when all of these elements crash together in one place leading to litigation? Well, a relatively recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least a partial answer. In Hensel Phelps Construction Company v Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc, the Virginia Supreme Court considered a claim that arose from construction at Virginia Tech by Hensel Phelps. The construction concluded in 1998 (remember that date). The Prime Contract included language concerning a one year “Guarantee of Work” as well as fairly typical Warranty of Workmanship” language. However the Prime Contract also stated that the one year guaranty term did nothing to affect any other limitations period for any other action pursuant to the Prime Contract (this is important as well because Virginia Tech was not subject to any statute of limitations due to its status as an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia). Final payment was made to Hensel Phelps and subsequently to the subcontractors in 1999. 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

McGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data Unit

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
McGraw Hill Financial announced “plans to sell a construction-data unit concentrated on the U.S. market” according to The Wall Street Journal. This follows McGraw Hill’s determination to “focus on global operations and cutting costs.” “The construction division ‘is not a business linked to the global markets,’” Douglas L. Peterson, McGraw Hill’s Chief Executive said to The Wall Street Journal. “’It's very different’ than its other units, such as Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, J.D. Power or S&P Capital IQ, with the potential for larger international footprints.” McGraw Hill’s construction division “sells commercial-real-estate information to developers and manufacturers” and “generates about $170 million in annual revenue.” The division “employs about 650 people.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit

November 03, 2016 — Jesse Howard Witt – The Witt Law Firm
One of the key reasons for builders to maintain liability insurance is to cover the cost of hiring defense counsel and paying litigation costs in the event of a construction defect lawsuit. If a builder loses a lawsuit, it will typically be responsible for paying the plaintiff’s litigation costs. Today, the Colorado Court of Appeals clarified that the “supplementary payments” section of a standard Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy covers such costs, even if the carrier has reserved the right to dispute whether it has a duty to indemnify the actual damages awarded. This may seem counter-intuitive, insofar as a carrier may owe costs even if it does not cover the underlying loss, but the court’s decision is consistent with the plain language of the CGL form that most carriers use. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm Mr. Witt may be contacted at his website www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits

November 01, 2022 — Edward O. Pacer & David J. Scriven-Young - ConsensusDocs
Recently, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed two House Bills that amend the Illinois Wage Payment & Collections Act, 820 ILCS 115 et. seq. (“Wage Act”), to provide greater protection for individuals working in the construction trades against wage theft in a defined class of projects. Pursuant to this new law, every general contractor, construction manager, or “primary contractor,” working on the projects included in the Bill’s purview will be liable for wages that have not been paid by a subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor on any contract entered into after July 1, 2022, together with unpaid fringe benefits plus attorneys’ fees and costs that are incurred by the employee in bringing an action under the Wage Act. This new wage theft law follows several other states that have considered and passed similar legislation. These amendments to the Wage Act apply to a primary contractor engaged in “erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building structure, or other private work.” However, there are important limitations to the amendment’s applicability. The amendment does not apply to projects under contract with state or local government, or to general contractors that are parties to a collective bargaining agreement on a project where the work is being performed. Additionally, the amendment does not apply to primary contractors who are doing work with a value of less than $20,000, or work that involves only the altering or repairing of an existing single-family dwelling or single residential unit in a multi-unit building. Reprinted courtesy of Edward O. Pacer, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) and David J. Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Pacer may be contacted at epacer@pecklaw.com Mr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at dscriven-young@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

March 19, 2014 — David J. Byassee - Ulich & Terry LLP
The California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair. Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case. But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy. The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes. Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com. Published courtesy of David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

July 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Many, many projects require the use of a crane. The skyline is oftentimes filled with the sight of cranes—one after the other. Most of the time, the cranes are leased from an equipment supplier. What happens if the crane (or any large, leased equipment) gets damaged? I wrote an article regarding a builder’s risk carrier NOT covering damage to a crane from a storm based on a common exclusion. Another case, Ajax Bldg. Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2004), had a similar result. In this case, a prime contractor leased a crane from an equipment supplier. The crane was used by the structural concrete subcontractor. The crane collapsed during the subcontractor’s work. The supplier sued both the contractor and subcontractor. The prime contractor was defended under a contractor’s equipment liability policy and the subcontractor was defended under a general liability policy it procured for its work on the project. Ultimately, a settlement was reached where the subcontractor’s liability insurer paid a bulk of the damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES