Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

March 30, 2016 — Eric J. Rollins, Esq. – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
It is common in California for the owners of a project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work as it is completed, but withhold a certain percentage as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. Contractors almost always pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors. Unsurprisingly, disputes can arise regarding when the withheld retentions must be paid. Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after receiving all or part of a retention payment. However, an exception exists -- a direct contractor may withhold from the retention paid to a subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount, whenever a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor.” (See Cal. Civ. Code, § 8814, subd. (c).) The problem with the statute is that it offers no help in defining a “good faith dispute,” and the California courts have historically not provided much guidance either. Can a “good faith dispute” be any dispute between the contracting parties, e.g., a dispute regarding change orders, mismanagement, etc.? Or must the dispute relate specifically to the retention? Unfortunately for California litigants, the answer may depend on the appellate district in which the parties find themselves. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric J. Rollins, Esq., Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Mr. Rollins may be contacted at eric.rollins@ndlf.com

First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill

January 18, 2021 — Syed S. Ahmad & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The First Circuit recently held that a “Special Hazard and Fluids Limitation Endorsement” was ambiguous and therefore there was excess coverage for a fuel spill that occurred after a tanker-truck overturned. In Performance Trans. Inc. v. General Star Indem. Co., the First Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of General Star Indemnity Company. The District Court held that the excess policy General Star issued to Performance Trans. Inc. precluded coverage for a spill that resulted in the leaking of thousands of gallons of fuel. The District Court relied on the existence of a total pollution exclusion to bar coverage and held that the policy’s Special Hazards and Fluids Limitation Endorsement could not create an ambiguity that would afford coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Finding an "Occurrence," Appellate Court Rules Insurer Must Defend

March 11, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing the trial court, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found the insurer must defend a cross-claim against the insured owner of a building after an explosion occurred. LBC, LLC v Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2023 Wis. App. LEXIS 1251 (Wis. Ct. App, Nov. 30, 2023). LBC leased commercial property to Spectrum. Spectrum stored lithium on the property. The lithium exploded when it came into contact with water that entered the premises during historic flooding in August 2018. Spectrum remediated the premises, vacated the premises prior to the lease's termination date, and stopped paying rent. LBC sued Spectrum, alleging that Spectrum negligently stored the lithium and that Spectrum breached the lease. Spectrum counterclaimed, alleging that LCB breached the lease in various respects, that LCB negligent allowed water to infiltrate the premises, and that Spectrum was constructively evicted. LCB tendered the counterclaim to its insurer, General Casualty. The tender was denied and LCB sued. 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

Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case

October 19, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the District of Hawaii denied the brokers' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal from claims that they inadequately advised the insured of the law regarding construction defects in Hawaii. Am Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haw. Nut & Bolt, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148571. Safeway sued Hawaii Nut & Bolt (HNB) and others for construction defects in a newly constructed store. The underlying complaint alleged products liability claims against HNB as the distributor of the "VersaFlex Coating System." HSB had represented that the coating system was adequate for its intended use. The underlying complaint alleged failure of the VersaFlex Coating System in waterproofing the roof deck of the store. After the store opened, water leaks from the roof deck appeared. Safeway alleged they were caused by the cracks and failures in the waterproof membrane in the roof deck. HNB notified its insurers of the claims. The insurers defended HNB during the litigation subject to reservation of rights letters. 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

Rather Than Limit Decision to "That Particular Part" of Developer's Policy Necessary to Bar Coverage, 10th Circuit Renders Questionable Decision on Exclusion j(6)

September 06, 2021 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Colorado law, recently extended Colorado’s broad application of the phrase “arising out of” in insurance interpretation, barring an insured real estate developer from receiving a defense to a suit alleging liability for construction of a defective retaining wall and associated resulting damage.1 The decision also included a questionable analysis of the commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy’s exclusion j(6), contradicting both the plain meaning of the exclusion as well as existing 10th Circuit case law. The underlying dispute concerned a land developer, HT Services, LLC, who was sued by the homeowner’s association (“HOA”) of one of its developments. The HOA alleged that HT Services negligently designed and constructed a retaining wall in the community. HT Services had CGL policies from Western Heritage Insurance Company in place from 2010 to 2013 that insured it for liability associated with four acres of land that the community was built upon. HT Services tendered the HOA’s lawsuit to Western Heritage, which declined to defend and indemnify HT Services. After that matter settled, HT Services sued Western Heritage, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Western Heritage moved for summary judgment, asserting two exclusions, and the District Court granted the motion in Western Heritage’s favor. In upholding the District Court’s decision, the 10th Circuit discussed two exclusions that the District Court determined precluded coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

AB5 Construction Exemption - A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5's Three-Part Test

May 18, 2020 — Blake A. Dillion - Payne & Fears
Construction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors' law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption. California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com

Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

July 10, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Whenever you elect to terminate the other party for cause or for default, you need to JUSTIFY the basis of the cause or default. The reason being is that a termination for default or cause is the harshest contractual remedy. This is why the other party will typically either (i) convert the termination for default into one for convenience, or (ii) if there is no termination for convenience provision in the contract, argue the terminating party breached the contract by terminating the contract without rightful justification. The key is if you are going to terminate a party for cause of default, make sure you have memorialized the persuasive reasons for exercising the termination, and can otherwise reasonably support the justification. Do not, and I repeat, do not haphazardly exercise a termination for default and think you do not have to justify the basis for the termination. 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

Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in a construction defect case, Lee v. Gorham. Minnesota law requires that contractors warranty that the home will be free of major construction defects during the first ten years, but claims must “be brought within two years of the discovery of the breach.” The Lees received a home inspection report in 2009 that identified a variety of defects, including “several possible structural defects.” The court noted that the report stated, “Contact your builder in writing of the findings, and discuss your options with an attorney.” The Lees contacted the contractor, Gorham Builders. After initial silence, Gorham told the Lees that problems would “have to be ‘turned over to [the] insurance company.’” Rodney noted in his testimony that he had two choices, to either sue Gorham or hire an outside contractor. Mr. Lee had concluded that the legal costs were likely to be equal to the cost of the contractor. In June, 2011, the Lees changed their mind about bringing a suit. Gorham sought and received a summary judgment dismissing the case on the grounds that too much time had passed since the Lees learned of the construction defect. The Lees appealed. The appeals court upheld the summary judgment. The Lees claimed that the 2009 home inspection did not alert them of a “major construction defect,” but the court concluded that the language of the report fit within the Minnesota statutory definition of a “major construction defect.” Nor was the appeals court convinced that at any time did Gorham provide “assurances that it would cure the defects to the home.” Within the same month as the May 2009 inspection, Gorham had made it clear that any problems were an issue for the insurance company. Thus, the appeals court concluded that the Lee’s equitable-estoppel argument was without merit. The Lees also brought to appeal the new argument that they did not realize they were dealing with “major construction defects” until they received a subsequent home inspection in 2011. The court noted that the second report does not detail “new defects or structural issues not identified in the 2009 inspection report.” In addition to being “without merit,” the court noted that this claim was not made in the district court and so the appeals court “need not consider this issue on appeal.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES