SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

September 16, 2024 — Stephanie L. Cooksey - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Untimely payment by the owner for contract work and additional work on construction projects can place an unfair financial burden on contractors and subcontractors. Most states have attempted to eliminate or mitigate this inequity in construction contracting through Prompt Payment Acts that govern payment deadlines and provide remedies for untimely payment. This article addresses the legislative trends aimed at minimizing the risk of non-payment, overdue payment, and withholding retainage in favor of downstream parties to a construction contract. Fortifying Contractor Protections with “Bright-Line” Language Over the last decade, states have been tightening prompt payment laws by replacing broad, general statutory language with bright-line rules. What is a bright-line rule? A specific or definite figure, a quantifiable marker—i.e., something owners, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers should be aware of. Practically speaking, the more bright-line a prompt payment statute is, the greater the likelihood it will affect a construction project in your state. A standard form construction contract, if not reviewed carefully, can create conflicts or confusion if it gives a party more leeway on payment deadlines than the applicable Prompt Payment Act. For example, consider an owner-issued Construction Change Directive (“CCD”) that requires a contractor to commence additional work immediately while a formal change order is negotiated. Consequently, a CCD can push financial burdens downstream, whether inadvertently or not, and may conflict with statutory payment deadlines. Nevertheless, an owner can be justified in its utilization of a CCD to maintain the project schedule. How should the parties competing interests be resolved? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

---

HOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects Bill

April 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Ed Sealover of the Denver Business Journal reported on a homeowner association group that has spoken out against the recent draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects bill. According to Sealover’s article, Senator Jessie Ulibarri claimed that the “proposed bill…would mandate that homeowners alleging that owner-occupied multi-family structures have major construction defects go through mediation or arbitration before a lawsuit can be filed.” Furthermore, the bill would require “written consent from a majority of unit owners” before the “executive board of a homeowners association files such a lawsuit.” The bill originated due to findings that “[l]ess than 2 percent of new housing stock being built in Colorado is in the form of condos, an anomaly that developers attribute to state laws that allow condo owners to file multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuits even if only a few of them want to move forward with the legal action.” However, Molly Foley-Healy, chairwoman of the Community Associations Institute (CLAC), spoke out against the bill: “Senator Ulibarri’s stated goal is to create more affordable housing, but this bill has nothing to do with affordable housing. Instead, it hurts the very people he said he wanted to help. It effectively blocks homeowners from holding builders responsible for their shoddy construction and leaves homeowners living in HOAs to pick up the tab for repairing the defects.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

September 16, 2019 — Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP
Wilke Fleury is proud to announce that 14 of our astounding attorneys were featured in the Annual List of Top Attorneys in the 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers magazine. Super Lawyers rates attorneys in each state using a patented selection process; they also publish a yearly magazine issue that regularly produces award-winning features on selected attorneys. Reprinted courtesy of Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Handshake Deals Gone Wrong

May 22, 2023 — Jessica Allain - ConsensusDocs
The construction industry has it fair share of “handshake deals”, oral agreements relying on the integrity of the people involved. But when it comes to protecting and enforcing legal rights, it is always a better idea to properly paper the deal and get it in writing. Otherwise, contractors relying on verbal promises may find themselves without any legal remedy should the deal go south. After all, it is not just a matter of trust, but also a way to document that everybody agrees on what the terms of the deal actually are. For example, a recent case out of New York highlights the dangers of unwritten promises. In Castle Restoration, LLC v. Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc., No. 16349-15 (N.Y. App. Div. 2/9/22), 2022 NY Slip Op 50082(U), 2022 WL 402882, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 485, Castle Inc. and Castle LLC entered into a deal for an asset sale to transfer equipment and a client list from Castle Inc. to Castle LLC. While that initial asset sale was properly papered with sale documents and a promissory note, the parties entered into a subsequent handshake/oral agreement where Castle LLC agreed to provide Castle Inc. with labor and materials on construction projects, and those goods and services would offset the payment obligation under the promissory note. But the problem was that the contract for the asset sale had a provision that the agreement could not be changed by oral agreement; rather, any changes had to be made in writing. Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Allain, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Allain may be contacted at jallain@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

First Suit Filed for Losses Caused by COVID-19

March 30, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Last week, the first lawsuit was filed seeking insurance coverage for business-interruption due to losses caused by COVID-19. The case, Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, ,et al., was filed in Louisiana. A New Orleans restaurant, Oceana Grill," seeks a declaratory judgment that its "all risks" policy issued by Lloyd's covers losses resulting from the closure of its restaurant due to the Governor's order restricting public gatherings and the Mayor of New Orleans' order closing restaurants. The lawsuit contends that "contamination of the insured premises by the coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces of the establishment." The lawsuit further alleges the policy contains no exclusions for a "viral pandemic." The suit seeks a declaration that "the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from coronavirus contamination and that the policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured premises." The obvious dispute will be whether the coronavirus constitutes a "direct physical loss or damage" as required by the policy. 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

---

The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage

March 09, 2020 — Sally Kim & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
The Washington courts have historically found that the purpose of a certificate of insurance is to advise others as to the existence of insurance, but that a certificate is not the equivalent of an insurance policy. However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently held that, under certain circumstances, an insurer may be bound by the representations that its insurance agent makes in a certificate of insurance as to the additional insured (“AI”) status of a third party. Specifically, in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court found that where an insurance agent had erroneously indicated in a certificate of insurance that an entity was an AI under a liability policy, that entity would be considered as an AI based upon the agent’s apparent authority, despite boilerplate disclaimer language contained in the certificate. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, Slip. Op. No. 96500-5, 2019 WL 5076647 (Wash. Oct. 10, 2019). In this case, Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) issued a liability policy to a contractor who had been retained by T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”) to construct a cell tower. The policy conferred AI status to a third party if the insured-contractor had agreed in a written contract to add the third party as an AI to the policy. Under the terms of the subject construction contract, the contractor was required to name T-Mobile NE as an AI under the policy. T-Mobile NE was therefore properly considered as an AI because the contractor was required to provide AI coverage to T-Mobile NE under the terms of their contract. However, over the course of approximately seven years, Selective’s own insurance agent issued a series of certificates of insurance that erroneously identified a different company, “T-Mobile USA”, as an AI under the policy. This was in error because there was no contractual requirement that T-Mobile USA be added as an AI. Nonetheless, the certificates stated that T-Mobile USA was an AI, and they were signed by the agent as Selective’s “authorized representative.” Reprinted courtesy of Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Maria Latest Threat to Puerto Rico After $1 Billion Irma Hit

September 20, 2017 — Brian K. Sullivan & Ezra Fieser - Bloomberg
Hurricane Maria was on course to hit Puerto Rico just two weeks after Irma caused as much as $1 billion in damages on the bankrupt island. Maria’s top winds were at 155 miles (250 kilometers) an hour, the National Hurricane Center said in a notice around 6 a.m. New York time. At Category 5, the strongest classification on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale, Maria was about 35 miles southeast of San Juan in Puerto Rico. Reprinted courtesy of Brian K. Sullivan, Bloomberg and Ezra Fieser, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

November 05, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
Dispute resolution provisions that grant one party the unilateral right to choose either litigation or arbitration to resolve disputes are common in the construction industry. The main difference between the two forums is that courts are more likely to strictly enforce contract terms as written as well as the applicable law, while arbitrators make decisions on more equitable considerations, untethered to the contract terms and—to some degree—the law. The party with the sole discretion to select the dispute resolution procedure can select the process most beneficial to its interests based on the nature of the dispute, regardless of who brings the claims. In Atlas Electrical Construction, Inc. v. Flintco, LLC, 550 P.3d 881 (N.M. Ct. App. 2024), the Court of Appeals of New Mexico recently held that an arbitration provision in a subcontract, under which the contractor retained the exclusive right to choose whether disputes arising under the subcontract were litigated in court or arbitrated was unreasonably one-sided, substantively unconscionable, and unenforceable. The Atlas Electrical case involved two sophisticated entities with equal bargaining strength to negotiate the terms of a subcontract. The parties agreed to a subcontract provision which provided in the relevant part:

In the event [contractor] and [subcontractor] cannot resolve the dispute through direct discussions or mediation … then the dispute shall, at the sole discretion of [contractor], be decided either by submission to (a) arbitration … or (b) litigation …

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

---