Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

July 02, 2018 — Jason Feld & Alex Chazen - Kahana & Feld LLP
California law mandates that any person who conducts roof inspections for a fee can no longer effectuate the actual repairs to the same property. Effective January 1, 2018, Business & Professions Code Section 7197 (Unfair Business Practices) deems it to be an unfair business practice for a home inspector who charges a homeowner a monetary fee for inspecting the property, to perform or offer to perform additional repairs due to the inherent financial interest and conflict raised by identifying alleged defects necessitating repairs. The new law is a result of California AB 1357, which was signed into law on October 5, 2017. The goal of the new law is to disincentivize a roof inspector from creating a report for the sole purpose of obtaining a bid to perform those documented repairs. The roof contractor can perform repairs identified in their report only after a twelve month “cooling period” which provides the homeowner an opportunity to obtain multiple bids/estimates for repairs based upon the inspector’s report. The new law also discourages home inspectors from providing a list of contractors who provide monetary referral fees back to the home inspector upon receiving repair work from the homeowner based exclusively on the home inspection report. The California Business & Professions Code Section 7195(a)(1) defines a “home inspection” as a “non-invasive, physical examination, performed for a fee in connection with the transfer…of the real property…or essential components of the residential dwelling.” Home inspection includes “any consultation regarding the property that is represented to be a home inspection or any confusingly similar term.” Business & Professions Code section 7195(a)(2) further defines a “home inspection” as including energy efficiency and solar. A “home inspection report” is a written report prepared for a fee issued after an inspection. Business & Professions Code section 7195(c). It is noted that a home inspector does not have to be a licensed architect, professional engineer, or general contractor with a Class “B” license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but “it is the duty of a home inspector who is not licensed as a general contractor, structural pest control operator, or architect, or registered as a professional engineer to conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise. Business & Professions Code section 7196. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and Alex Chazen, Kahana & Feld LLP Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanalaw.com Mr. Chazen may be contacted at achazen@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

December 21, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's issuance of the insurer's motion for summary judgment, thereby rejecting the insureds' negligence per se claim for failure to pay benefits. Braun-Salinas v. Am Family Ins. Group, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19555 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2016). The insureds argued that Oregon recognized a negligence per se claim based on an insurer's failure to pay benefits in violation of the statutory standard under state law. Oregon appellate courts, however, only allowed a negligence per se claim only where a negligence claim otherwise existed. The Oregon courts had previously rejected a statutory theory, holding that a violation of the statute did not give rise to a tort action. 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

Retainage: What Contractors Need to Know and Helpful Strategies

June 04, 2024 — Gerard J. Onorata - ConsensusDocs
Introduction Most, if not all, construction contracts contain a provision for “retainage.” The origin and concept of retainage dates back to the railroad boom that embraced Great Britain in the 1840s. In its simplest terms, retainage is a mechanism by which an owner or general contractor withholds disbursement of funds from the payment of a requisition in order to secure future performance of a contract and/or to pay for repair of defectively performed work. Retainage typically ranges from five to ten percent, with the amount being reduced as the project progresses to substantial and final completion. One of the reasons for withholding retainage is to incentivize a contractor to complete its work in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. While this may be well-intentioned in concept, it all too often leads to abuse that impacts project cash flow and raises tension between the parties. This typically happens on projects that have delay issues, deficient drawings, and/or claims of defective work. When a project has “gone bad,” the withholding of retainage is one of the first things that an owner will latch onto in order to leverage its position against a contractor. In order for a contractor to put itself in the best position possible, the following negotiation techniques and protective measures should be kept in mind. Know Your Applicable Statute Every state except West Virginia has statutes in place that govern the payment of retainage on public projects. On federal projects, the amount of retainage withheld shall not exceed ten percent as set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”). The common thread running through these statutes is the payment of interest as a remedy when the retainage is not timely paid. Historically, most retainage statutes were applicable only to publicly funded projects. This has recently changed with a substantial number of state legislatures recognizing that the payment of retainage on private projects was a serious enough problem to warrant regulation. These include Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. New York’s retainage laws relating to private projects were enacted only this past November. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

July 30, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Relying upon precedent from the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court's denial of coverage based upon the policy's contractual-liability exclusion. Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12158 (5th Cir. June. 27, 2014). The Crownovers entered a construction contract with Arrow Development, Inc. to construct a home. Paragraph 23.1 of the contract contained a warranty-to-repair clause, which provided Arrow "would correct work . . . failing to conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents." After the work was completed, cracks began to appear in the walls and foundation of the Crownovers' home. Additional problems with the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system caused leaking in exterior lines and air ducts inside the home. When Arrow refused to correct the problems, the Crownovers initiated arbitration. The arbitrator found that the Crownovers had a meritorious claim for breach of the express warranty to repair contained in paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract. Damages were awarded. 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 is Mediation Appropriate for Your Construction Case?

May 07, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often discussed mediation as a good alternative to the expense and headaches of litigation. What I have discussed less often are the circumstances in which it is most appropriate to consider or even push for mediation. The obvious and clearest time that mediation must be used is where the contract requires it. Many construction contracts, including those from the AIA (when the parties check the appropriate box) require mediation as a prerequisite to arbitration or litigation. As is almost always the case in Virginia, this clause will be enforced. In short, if your construction contract has such a clause, and despite my reservations about “mandatory mediation,” you need to at least go through the process before moving forward with your construction claim. The more interesting case is where no such clause exists and the parties reach an impasse, sometimes prior to litigation and often after the filing of a construction complaint or demand for arbitration. What questions should you as a construction attorney be asking both to and about your construction clients before attempting mediation? 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

25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

May 03, 2018 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
For a quarter of a century, West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar has been a professional development staple of the construction defect industry. It’s the place where experts, attorneys, mediators, insurance agents, and other industry leaders have gathered to discuss current happenings, take continuing education credits, network with other industry members, and to connect with others. Celebrating its silver anniversary, this year’s seminar continues to be the construction defect community’s must-go-to event. On May 16th-18th, the seminar will return to the Disneyland Hotel. This issue of Construction Defect Journal will provide you with information about what’s happening in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar and to commemorate the past. We hope to see you at this year’s West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar. Enjoy! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

May 26, 2019 — Sree Vidya Bhaktavatsalam - Bloomberg
Thierry Déau’s engineering training in France led him early in his career to building government-funded infrastructure. But it was his entrepreneur father back home in Martinique who inspired him to strike out on his own in 2005. He started Paris-based Meridiam to finance, build, and manage long-term projects. Now, with €7 billion ($7.83 billion) in seven funds and nine offices across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and North America, Meridiam is playing a key role in high-profile projects such as the upgrade of New York’s LaGuardia Airport and a road tunnel under the Port of Miami. Déau describes Meridiam’s investment approach in an interview with Bloomberg Markets. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sree Vidya Bhaktavatsalam, Bloomberg

Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

August 04, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court in Colorado has determined in the case of RK Mechanical, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America that Travelers did not breach its insurance contract when it refused to cover RK Mechanical.

RK Mechanical performed an HVAC installation for a residential project for which J.E. Dunn Rocky Mountain was the general contractor. As part of the work, RK “installed approximately one hundred seventy-one CPVC flanges, which were manufactured by Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company.” Two of these flanges failed in June, 2009 leading to water damage. RK replaced the cracked flanges and engaged in water remediation. “Travelers paid Dunn and RK for the costs associated with the water damage associated with the Flange Failure.” The court notes that Travelers did not pay for the cracked flanges, however.

Subsequently, RK examined the remaining flanges, finding many cracked ones. These were replaced with new ones. Later, all the Charlotte flanges were replaced with ones from another manufacturer. RK applied for coverage.

All sides brought in their experts: “Microbac Laboratories, Inc. prepared a report on behalf of RK concluding that the Flange Failure was due, in part, to an assembly or workmanship defect in addition to manufacturing defects in the flanges. Higgins & Associates prepared a report on behalf of Travelers concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation. Plastic Failure Labs prepared a report on behalf of the flange manufacturer concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation by RK.”

At this point, Travelers denied coverage. RK sued alleging that the coverage for flange failure and water damage implicitly includes mitigation costs. The court rejected this claim, noting it would do so even if Travelers had paid for the replacement of the first two flanges. Nor did the court find that replacement of the faulty flanges is not "a covered cause of loss." RK also argued that as it was required to mitigate, Travelers was obligated to cover costs. However, the court found that “the mitigation costs expended by RK were not incurred in an effort to avoid damages from a potential breach of contract by Travelers.” The court additionally noted that despite RK’s claims, the Colorado courts have not found a common law duty to mitigate. Finally, the court found that the exclusions in the policy were not in violation of public policy.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES