Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Stick to Your Guns on Price and Pricing with Construction Contracts

December 20, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In recent posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed the need for clarity of contract, trusting your gut, and assuring that your contract has the necessities. All of these bits of advice (along with my usual advice of working with an experienced construction attorney) are true with regard to commercial construction contracts and apply ten fold in a residential construction (read working for a single/family owner on their house). With a residential project, you, as a construction contractor, are likely to be dealing with the difficult combination of an owner with little or no experience relating to how a construction project is supposed to work and an owner that is emotionally invested in the project because it is their home. Because of the above, and the fact that your project is likely the biggest single investment that the owner has made outside of possibly a prior house, the residential owner will likely be looking over your shoulder and may very well attempt to negotiate down some of the costs that they perceive as the project moves forward. In short, the average person 1. does not know how much the project truly costs the contractor, and 2. feels that because they hold the cash, they can and should have some control over the individual costs of the construction thus making those costs, and by extension, their contract, negotiable right up until the end. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

January 04, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Originally Published by CDJ on January 5, 2017 A performance bond is a valuable tool designed to guarantee the performance of the principal of the contract made part of the bond. But, it is only a valuable tool if the obligee (entity the bond is designed to benefit) understands that it needs to properly trigger the performance bond if it is looking to the bond (surety) to remedy and pay for a contractual default. If the performance bond is not properly triggered and a suit is brought upon the bond then the obligee could be the one materially breaching the terms of the bond. This means the obligee has no recourse under the performance bond. This is a huge downside when the obligee wanted the security of the performance bond, and reimbursed the bond principal for the premium of the bond, in order to address and remediate a default under the underlying contract. A recent example of this downside can be found in the Southern District of Florida’s decision in Arch Ins. Co. v. John Moriarty & Associates of Florida, Inc., 2016 WL 7324144 (S.D.Fla. 2016). Here, a general contractor sued a subcontractor’s performance bond surety for an approximate $1M cost overrun associated with the performance of the subcontractor’s subcontract (the contract made part of the subcontractor’s performance bond). The surety moved for summary judgment arguing that the general contractor failed to property trigger the performance bond and, therefore, materially breached the bond. The trial court granted the summary judgment in favor of the performance bond surety. Why? 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

Points on Negotiating Construction Claims

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Eugene Heady of Smith Currie and Hancock offers some pointers on the effective negotiation of construction claims. He notes that “claims and disputes in the construction industry are commonplace,” but that “settlement usually comes after much pain, suffering, and expense.” He offers nine points to consider when negotiating construction claims. His first two points are to develop a claim position and then document that claim. He says that “the facts underlying the claim should be nonnegotiable.” The documentation “suggests to your opponent that you have done your homework and are serious about the pursuit of your claim.” He also notes that you need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of your position. On the other side, you need to “understand your opponent’s positions,” and also “your opponent’s strengths.” He points out that “an appreciation for what is truly important to your opponent is the starting point for the development of creative solutions to the dispute. Further, bargaining should be done in good faith, negotiation should be done on the merits, and you are well advised to “choose a seasoned and skilful negotiator. “A prolonged and expensive legal battle is not likely to change the outcome,” he warns. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How to Lose Your Contractor’s License in 90 Days (or Less): California and Louisiana

November 15, 2021 — Rafael Boza - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Having your Contractor’s License up and running to perform work when needed, where needed, is an indispensable compliance matter that contractors face every year. However, this indispensable process may also be cumbersome and time consuming. Knowing the regulations applicable to your business in each state and what to do, how to do it, and when to do it, is of critical importance to maintain compliance and your ability to work in different states. In this post we will do a high-level review of reporting obligations in California and Louisiana. California’s Contractors’ State License Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7000 et seq., requires licensees to report various information to the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) “within 90 days” of the effective date or event. Louisiana State Licensing Laws and Regulations, R.S. §§ 37:24 et seq. and La. Admin. Code tit. 46, XXIX, §§ 101 et seq. also require similar reporting to the Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors (LSLBC), sometimes “within 15 days” of the event. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rafael Boza, Pillsbury
Mr. Boza may be contacted at rafael.boza@pillsburylaw.com

Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims

May 18, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
On February 7th, Representative Garnett, with Senator Fenberg as the Senate sponsor, introduced HB 20-1290, concerning the ability of an insurer to use a failure-to-cooperate defense in an action in which the insured has made a claim for insurance coverage. If the bill were to pass, in order to plead or prove a failure-to-cooperate defense in any action concerning first-party insurance benefits, the following conditions must be met:

The carrier has submitted a written request for information the carrier seeks to the insured or the insured’s representative, by certified mail;
The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
The information sought would be discoverable in litigation;

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

April 20, 2017 — JT Long - Engineering News-Record
The first wave of new road projects could go out at the beginning of 2018 now that the California legislature has approved $52.4 billion over 10 years from a new 12-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. SB-1 was approved late in the evening on April 6; by April 7, the California Dept. of Transportation was already working on a list of projects that could start construction by summer of 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of JT Long, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Cal/OSHA ETS: Newest Version Effective Today

January 17, 2022 — Amy R. Patton, Matthew C. Lewis & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
The newest version of the Cal/OSHA ETS goes into effect today, Jan. 14, 2022, and will expire on April 15, 2022. A redline of the recently expired Cal/OSHA ETS and the newest Cal/OSHA ETS is available HERE. The newest Cal/OSHA ETS, which was drafted prior to Dec. 16, 2021, is already partially out-of-date based on the California Department of Public Heath’s Guidance For the Use of Masks (released Jan. 5, 2022) and the CDPH’s Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public (released Jan. 8, 2022); these changes have been addressed in the Cal/OSHA ETS FAQs. With all of these changes occurring (not to mention all of the litigation surrounding the now-stayed federal OSHA ETS), California employers are asking: How do I comply with the current Cal/OSHA ETS and the updated CDPH Guidance? Here are the key points to ensure you are in compliance:

New Shorter Isolation and Quarantine Periods

Day 0: First day of symptoms or the day a positive test specimen was collected. Begin isolation.
Day 1: First full day after symptoms developed or positive test specimen was collected.
Day 5: Recommended day to take COVID-19 test.

Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears, Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Mortgagors Seek Coverage Under Mortgagee's Policy

July 19, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The mortgagor homeowners survived a motion to dismiss their claim for coverageunder the lender's property policy after their home suffered hurricane damage. Gary v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100010 (W.D. La. May 26, 2021). Plaintiffs' home was mortgaged by Pennymac Loan Services, LLC. Pennymac held a property policy with American Security to insure its interest in the home. Plaintiffs were not named as insureds or additional insureds under the policy. Plaintiffs were identified as the borrowers under the policy on the Declarations page. After hurricane damage to their home, plaintiffs sued American Security for coverage for the losses. American Security moved to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs were neither additional insureds nor third party beneficiaries. Lender-placed policies were designed to insure the lender's collateral whenever the borrower failed to maintain adequate insurance. The Loss Payment provisions in the policy stated that "Loss will be made payable to the named insured [Pennymac]. No coverage will be available to any mortgagee other than that shown as the named insured on the Declarations." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES