Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Just Because You Allege There Was an Oral Contract Doesn’t Mean You’re Off the Hook for Attorneys’ Fees if you Lose

March 28, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
There’s certain things in life you shouldn’t mix. Like drinking and driving. Bleach and ammonia. Triple dog dares and frozen poles. And angry lawyers and litigation. In Spahn v. Richards, Case No. A159495 (November 30, 2021), angry lawyer Jeffrey Spahn sued general contractor Dan Richards claiming that Richards orally agreed to build Spahn’s million dollar plus house for $515,000. Not only did Spahn not recover anything from Richards, he ended up owing Richards $239,171 in attorney’s fees and costs, after he denied a request for admission asking that he admit that there was no oral contract. The Spahn Case In 2017, Spahn filed suit against Richards for breach of oral contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. According to Spahn, he met Richards in June 2015 and the two reached an agreement whereby Richards agreed to demolish Spahn’s house for $12,500 and build a new one for $515,000. Further according to Spahn, Richards agreed to this “fixed price” “oral contract” in June 2015, and then, on July 1, 2015, Richards “confirmed and agreed that he would perform the construction project” for $515,000 and would complete construction by May 2016. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp Obtain Summary Judgment in Favor of Residential Property Owners

December 13, 2022 — Gregory S. Pennington & Emily A. Velcamp - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp obtained summary judgment in favor of their clients, owners of a residential property [the “Owners” or “Defendants”] used as a short-term rental in Beach Haven, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleged injuries resulting from a fall into an open water meter pit, located in the public sidewalk abutting the Owners’ property during the time within which the property was rented to plaintiff and his family. According to plaintiff, defendants breached their duty owed to him, relying on a Borough of Beach Haven Ordinance, thereby allowing the water meter pit to be raised in an unsafe manner, which resulted in plaintiff’s fall and subsequent injuries. After the Court denied defendants’ initial Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that issues of material fact existed regarding defendants’ duty and the alleged breach of that duty, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp argued that their clients, as residential landowners, owed no duty of care to plaintiff for the raised condition of the water meter pit lid, located in the abutting sidewalk, as they did not cause or contribute to the alleged condition. Defendants further argued that even if a duty of care existed, no breach occurred given the lack of notice to defendants, either actual or constructive. Plaintiff attempted to argue that defendants had constructive notice of the lid’s raised condition, relying on his expert report and the fact that defendants had 3.5 months from the date the property was purchased, to the date of the subject accident to discover the lid’s raised condition. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp successfully argued that despite plaintiff’s allegations and the findings contained in plaintiff’s expert report, authored 2 months after the alleged accident, there was still no credible, material evidence to say how long the water meter pit lid was in that raised condition to allow defendants a reasonable time to discover it, remedy it, or report it to the Borough. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and Emily A. Velcamp, Traub Lieberman Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com Ms. Velcamp may be contacted at evelcamp@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Structural Problems May Cause Year-Long Delay Opening New Orleans School

January 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Uptown Messenger, structural issues found at Audubon Charter School’s Broadway campus in New Orleans, Louisiana, will require “selective demolition” and “could delay students’ return by as much as a full year.” Late September of last year, “officials discovered that some of the steel supports around the stair towers were not level—some of the steel beams lean out several inches, so that the floors are not parallel.” Discovering the problem will require some demolition, according to Chris Young of Blitch Knevel architects as quoted in the Uptown Messenger: “…we’re going to have to tear down a lot of this construction to expose that steel frame to make sure that every steel beam is straight and true and not deformed.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Spencer Mayer Receives Miami-Dade Bar Association's '40 Under 40' Award

March 04, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Miami, Fla. (February 23, 2024) – Miami Associate Spencer Mayer received the 2024 Miami-Dade Bar Association Young Lawyers Section’s '40 under 40' Award at the association's annual "Miami Nights" event on February 22. Mr. Mayer serves on the Board of Directors of the Miami Dade Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Section. Lewis Brisbois was a proud sponsor of this event, which raised funds for the organization's community service initiatives and pro bono programming. Mr. Mayer is a member of the General Liability Practice. His practice focuses on all aspects of civil litigation, including complex commercial litigation, products liability, premises liability, wrongful death, catastrophic injury, and insurance coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

More In-Depth Details on the Davis-Bacon Act Overhaul

November 06, 2023 — Seth C. Wiseman & Angela M. Richie - Construction Executive
The U.S. Department of Labor’s finalization of a rule updating the Davis-Bacon Act, the federal law that governs how prevailing wages for federal construction projects can be determined, will have a significant impact on contractors and workers alike in the construction industry. The new rule, in effect, adopts the 30% rule, meaning that the prevailing wages must be equal to the wage paid to at least 30% of workers of a particular classification in a particular area. The new rule also implements a new anti-retaliation provision, specifically protecting construction workers who raise concerns about payment practices from adverse employment actions. The timing of this new rule is particularly significant for contractors, as it will likely raise the cost of labor for contractors at a time when the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS Act are providing additional funding for federal projects across the country. Thus, it is important for all parties in the construction industry to understand the updated rule in order to evaluate the short-term impacts on their respective projects and long-term impact on their respective businesses. Reprinted courtesy of Seth C. Wiseman & Angela M. Richie, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Wiseman may be contacted at swiseman@grsm.com Ms. Richie may be contacted at arichie@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien “Waivers” and “Releases”: What’s the Difference?

March 19, 2015 — Thomas C. Rogers – White and Williams LLP
In the world of Pennsylvania mechanics’ liens there is much confusion about the interchangeable use of the words mechanics lien “waiver” and mechanics’ lien “release.” Many who work in the world of real estate in Pennsylvania, be they contractors, subcontractors, developers, lenders, or attorneys, use these terms interchangeably without understanding that there is a meaningful difference. Failure to understand the difference creates confusion when discussing issues and drafting documents regarding mechanics’ liens. In Pennsylvania a mechanics’ lien “waiver” is the pre-construction waiver of liens that was historically executed by a general contractor and an owner and filed with the Prothonotary in the county in which construction is located. These pre-construction lien “waivers,” assuming they were properly prepared, signed by the contractor and owner and filed in accordance with applicable law, negated the ability of that contractor and its subcontractors to file a mechanics’ lien on the subject property. These pre-construction lien “waivers” were part of every construction loan closing up through the amendments to the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Act that went into effect in 2007. Since 2007, the Mechanics’ Lien Act has been amended twice to further address those circumstances in which pre-construction lien waivers still have vitality. Except with respect to those narrow situations specifically provided for in the statute, pre-construction lien “waivers” are against public policy in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Thomas C. Rogers, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Rogers may be contacted at rogerst@whiteandwilliams.com

Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act

June 08, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the Contract Disputes Act (41 USC 7101 en seq.), when a contractor submits a claim to the government in excess of $100,000, the claim MUST contain a certification of good faith, as follows: For claims of more than $100,000 made by a contractor, the contractor shall certify that– (A) the claim is made in good faith; (B) the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief; (C) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal Government is liable; and (D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1). See also 48 C.F.R. s. 33.207(c) as to the wording of the certification. The contracting officer is not required to render a final decision on the claim within 60 days if, during this time period, he/she notifies the contractor of the reasons why the certification is defective. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(3). Importantly, the contracting officer’s failure to render a decision within 60 days is deemed an appealable denial. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

November 14, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The “failure to cooperate” defense is a defense an insurer may raise when its insured fails to cooperate with it in the defense of the claim against the insured. If an insurer takes this position, it will typically be denying both defense and indemnification obligations, meaning the insured could be forfeiting coverage that otherwise exists through his/her/its failure to cooperate with the insurer. This defense by the insurer is not absolute as recently explained by the Fourth District in Barthelemy v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2379a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discussing the elements of this failure to cooperate defense. 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