Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

April 01, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
One of the attendees of the Goldleaf Surety presentation asked a great question about reducing retention under the Nebraska Construction Prompt Pay Act, Nebraska Revised Statutes, 45-1201-45-1211. He wanted to know whether there was any way to reduce and recover retainage during the project. The short answer is retainage should be reduced half way through the project, but there is no right to recover retainge for work performed during the first half of the project. Retainage in Nebraska Under section 45-1204 of the Prompt Pay Act, a contractor may withhold up to 10% retainage. A contract that allows for greater retainage is not enforceable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Owner Can’t Pursue Statutory Show Cause Complaint to Cancel Lien… Fair Outcome?

June 10, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If there is a payment dispute with a construction lienor — could be a contractor, a subcontractor, or supplier – it is possible, and more than likely, a construction lien may get recorded against real property. This scenario is not uncommon as the lien is the mechanism for the lienor to collateralize their claimed nonpayment. Now, in reality, it does not take much money to record a lien. A lienor should utilize a lawyer to prepare their liens, but maybe they prepare liens in-house. Regardless, the recording of the lien is a nominal cost and the clerk that dockets and records the lien does NOT analyze the merits of the lien. That is not what the clerk is there to do; nor do you really want them the delve into the factual merits. Well, what if a lien is facially invalid, meaning that the lien, on its face, includes information that demonstrates it is NOT properly perfected. Or what if the lienor failed to properly preserve or perfect its lien rights before recording the lien. This happens! Naturally, an owner of the real property wants the lien removed from the property. The owner does not want the encumbrance. The owner could transfer the lien to a lien transfer bond under Florida’s Lien Law, but that is easier said than done. And this does not discharge the lien; it just removes the lien from the property to the security of the bond. 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

Arbitration is Waivable (Even If You Don’t Mean To)

February 16, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Be careful with how you act with arbitration clauses in your contracts. If you are not careful in how you act to enforce these clauses, you could find yourself stuck in court whether you like it or not. As I stated in a recent update to a post last month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the issue of a contractor’s waiver of its rights to arbitration under a contract. Briefly, the facts of Forrester v. Penn Lyon Homes, et. al., No. 07-2171 are as follows. The Forrester’s sued Penn Lyon and its warranty company alleging among other things a breach of express warranty based upon a warranty contract containing a mandatory arbitration clause. Instead of immediately alleging an affirmative defense based upon the arbitration clause, the defendants removed the case to federal court and litigated for 18 months before raising the arbitration defense for the first time. The 4th Circuit (correctly in my opinion) affirmed the lower court and held that the defendants defaulted their right to arbitration because of their actions in defense of the court action and the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by those actions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

US Proposes Energy Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings

January 04, 2023 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. government is looking to its own buildings as a source for cutting carbon emissions with a new energy and climate performance standard. Additionally, federal officials announced a proposed rule that would eliminate energy-related emissions from new and renovated federal buildings. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

May 15, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

October 07, 2016 — Mark L. Parisi – White and Williams LLP
Owners of homes with damage from construction defects have long had the standing to sue the builders of their homes using the legal theories of 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of implied warranty, and 3) breach of Pennsylvania’s consumer fraud statute, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Before the 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Conway v. Cutler, even owners who were not the original purchasers of their homes, so-called subsequent owners, had a right to sue the builder of their homes using implied warranty as the legal theory. But the Supreme Court in Conway said in 2014 that even though an implied warranty theory is not based on a written contract, it is a quasi contract theory and because subsequent owners never had a contractual relationship with the builder of their home, the implied warranty cause of action was not available. Subsequent purchasers were thus left without a remedy for damage from defective construction in their homes and builders had a second safe harbor from claims regarding homes they built. The first safe harbor is Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose. If the home was completed more than 12 years before a lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Repose bars the claim. But after Conway, if the home was sold, this also cut off a builder’s potential liability for construction defects in the home. ENTER THE UTPCPL On July 26, 2016 the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Adams v. Hellings Builders issued a non-published (and therefore non-precedential) decision in a stucco construction defect case that held that subsequent purchasers could sue their home’s builder under the UTPCPL because the Act had no requirement that the purchaser of a product, or home, be the original purchaser. The decision cites several other appellate cases not involving construction defect claims that held that the UTPCPL was a valid legal theory for claims regarding products purchased second hand by the plaintiffs in those other cases. The court in Adams held that there was no reason that a suit regarding construction defects in a home should be treated any differently. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Parisi may be contacted at parisim@whiteandwilliams.com

Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

June 08, 2020 — Kristopher M. Stockberger - The Grindstone Lewis Brisbois' Labor & Employment Blog
1. The Devil’s in the Details Under Texas law, for a non-compete agreement to be enforceable, it must meet strict requirements as to timing, geography, and the type of conduct that it prohibits. While courts have enforced agreements for between one and two years, your situation could be subject to a shorter time period. If the geographical scope of the agreement is too broad or vague, that could render the agreement unenforceable. Also, the type of conduct prohibited by your agreement should be tied to the specifics of your business, because categorical barriers to other employment are often not enforced. If an employer knowingly instructs an employee to enter an overbroad non-compete agreement, the employer runs the risk of paying the employee’s attorneys’ fees. 2. Timing on the Front End If an employee has been with an employer for years and the employer suddenly decides to have her sign a non-compete without any other meaningful change in the employee’s role, then the agreement will probably not be enforceable, unless the employee receives “consideration.” In this context, consideration is something of value, other than money or benefits, which the law deems to warrant protection by a non-compete agreement. For example, allowing an employee to learn the secret formula to Coca-Cola or to gain access to an employer’s confidential financials constitutes legally sufficient consideration given to an employee in exchange for the employee’s promises in a non-compete agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristopher M. Stockberger, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Stockberger may be contacted at Kris.Stockberger@lewisbrisbois.com

#1 CDJ Topic: McMillin Albany LLC v Superior Court of California

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Stephen A. Sunseria of Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP discussed how the Fifth Appellate District court “issued a blistering criticism of the Fourth Appellate District’s prior opinion in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Ca.App.4th 98, which severely limited the reach of the Act to actions not involving property damage and allowing property damage claims to proceed freely under common law without any constraints posed by the Act.” Sunseri stated that “McMillin is a great victory for homebuilders, but battle lines are now clearly drawn between the two appellate districts.” Read the full story... In another article regarding the McMillin Albany LLC case, Garret Murai of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP posted an article on his California Construction Law Blog that went over the legal debate of California’s Right to Repair Act including Liberty Mutual, Burch v. Superior Court, and KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court and concluded with a discussion of the McMillin Albany case. Murai predicted, rightly it turned out, that the case would see a “final round before the California Supreme Court.” Read the full story... In their December 2, 2015 article, authors Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger reported that the California Supreme Court granted the petition for review of the McMillin Albany decision: “The holdings in Liberty Mutual and McMillin Albany present a conflict of authority that the California Supreme Court has appropriately deemed worthy of review. The parties will now be permitted to file briefs on the merits and amicus briefs will certainly be submitted by the defense and plaintiff bars.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES