SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

September 03, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Jessica M. Lassere Ryland - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On August 27, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal weighed in on whether prevailing wages are required for public contracts in situations where work is performed in furtherance of the project but at a permanent offsite manufacturing facility that is not exclusively dedicated to the project. In Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 401 v. John C. Duncan and Russ Will Mechanical, the project at issue was for a community college district where Russ Will was the HVAC subcontractor. The contract documents required contractors to pay prevailing wages but they did not limit where or how Russ Will would fabricate sheet metal required for the job. Russ Will used its existing fabrication facility to form the sheet metal. An employee of Russ Will filed a complaint with the DIR alleging he should have been paid prevailing wages for work related to the project. The worker fabricated sheet metal for the project but at Russ Will’s Hayward facility, not at the site. The DIR issued a coverage determination in which it concluded that Russ Will was required to pay prevailing wages for the offsite fabrication work associated with the project. The DIR's determination turned on whether Russ Will was exempt from the prevailing wage law as a material supplier. To qualify for the material supplier exemption, the employer must sell supplies to the general public and its fabrication or manufacturing facility must not be established for the particular public works contract or be located at the site of the public work. Following the DIR determination, Rush Will filed an administrative appeal. The department reversed its initial coverage determination, concluding that the offsite fabrication performed by Russ Will was not subject to the prevailing wage law. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

February 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
"Housing is clearly recovering," David Blitzer of Standard & Poor told USA Today. Standard & Poor issued their Case-Shiller Index of home sale prices for November. In their review of twenty metropolitan areas, prices rose in all but one area. In the report for October, housing overall saw a 0.1% decline with gains only in ten cities. The article attributes this in part to that the inventory of unsold homes was 4.4 months, which was the lowest since May 2005. "Any new listings are getting eaten up right away," said E. J. Bowlds, a broker at Coldwell Banker Bain. He is seeing six to ten competing offers on homes in his area of Washington State. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

November 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court determined that coverage was properly denied under the pollution exclusion of the policies. Headwaters Resources, Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20060 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2014). Over 400 residents of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed two lawsuits against the insured, Headwaters, alleged property damage and bodily injury due to pollution generated in connection with the development of a golf course. The complaints alleged that between 2002 and 2007, the defendants used 1.5 million tons of toxic fly ash during construction of a golf course. The insured allegedly transported the fly ash to an open pit adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The chemicals from the fly ash leached into the ground water, damaging the private wells. The fly ash pit also released airborne contaminants that produced a strong smell of ammonia. As a result of the alleged contamination, the property values of plaintiffs' homes depreciated and members of the community faced increased risk of serious bodily injuries caused by exposure to the fly ash. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

August 13, 2019 — Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocs
Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

First Trump Agenda Nuggets Hit Construction

January 26, 2017 — Pam Radtke Russell, Mary B. Powers & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
President Donald J. Trump began making good on campaign promises to put Americans back to work and reduce the size of government, as he signed orders and memoranda setting in motion approval of the Obama administration-halted Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines and stream­lining of infrastructure and manufacturing permitting processes. But firms and watchdog groups are concerned how an announced freezing of government hiring and contracting will play out, as well as the future of environmental protection. Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record staff Pam Radtke Russell, Mary B. Powers and Debra K. Rubin Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com

---

Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

July 23, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit determined that the Umbrella policies took effect once the primary insurance was exhausted by claims not covered by the Umbrella policies. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. W&T Offshore, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11775 (5th Cir. June 23, 2014). W&T had primary and Umbrella/Excess coverage to protect its offshore oil rigs from hurricane damage. The primary policies covered property damage and third party claims. The Umbrella policies only covered third-party claims. All policies covered Removal of Debris (ROD). In September 2008, Hurricane Ike caused damage to 150 offshore platforms in which W&T had an interest. W&T submitted over $150 million in claims for property damage to the primary carriers. The primary policies had a $10 million self-insured retention (SIR). The primary policies covered $150 million in coverage over the $10 million SIR. Anticipating that W&T would submit all of its ROD claims, which were estimated to exceed $50 million, the Umbrella carriers filed suit for a declaratory judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Questions of Fact Regarding Collapse of Basement Walls Prevent Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

December 19, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on whether the policy covered the collapse of basement walls based upon factual issues presented. Sirois v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158508 (D. Conn. Sept. 18, 2018). The insureds' purchased their home in 2010. In December 2015, a crack in the basement wall was noticed. It was not thought to be a serious problem. But in 2016, the insured read an article about defective concrete problems affecting homeowners in Connecticut. An inspector, Dean Soucy, was hired. He found faults and cracks in the foundation walls. Thereafter, a claim was submitted to USAA under homeowners' policies issued over the years to the insureds. USAA denied coverage. 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

---

Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
The U.S. District Court in Alabama certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: Is damage to a project caused by faulty workmanship "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence"? With some qualification, the Connecticut Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Capstone Building Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886 (Conn. June 11, 2013). Captsone Development agreed to coordinate and supervise construction on a building at the University of Conneticut. Capstone Building was the general contractor. UConn secured an OCIP policy from American Motorist Insurance Company ("AMICO"). More than three years after completion, UConn notified the insureds of alleged defects in the project, including elevated levels of carbon monoxide. The source of the leak was the individual hot water heaters in residential units and insufficient draft of exhaust from the heater.Other defects were found during an investigation. The insureds tendered to AMICO. Coverage was denied because the liability arose out of the insureds' own work.The insureds settled with UConn, paying $1 million each. The insureds then sued AMICO in Alabama and the question was certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---