Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Supply Chain Delay Recommendations

August 07, 2022 — Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
This Bulletin provides guidance to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others to ensure compliance with contractual change order requirements in the event work on a construction project is impacted by supply chain delays. Contract Protection Tips: The construction industry is being impacted substantially by inability to obtain necessary construction products due to supply chain issues. Most construction contracts do not accommodate time extensions due to supply chain impacts. To address this gap in contract terms, we recommend including language such as: “lack of or failure of or other inability to obtain necessary transportation, fuel, power, materials, machinery, equipment or facilities, delays caused by other contractors, subcontractors or their subcontractors of any tier, or any materialmen or suppliers” as part of the defined force majeure event under the contract. This provision can be included in the Change Order section of the contract as well by including a provision such as: “If the Work is delayed by the failure of or other inability to obtain necessary transportation, fuel, power, materials, machinery, equipment or facilities, delays caused by other contractors, subcontractors or their subcontractors of any tier, or any materialmen or suppliers, contractor shall be entitled to a change order for its costs and time associated with the delay.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Ms. Motta may be contacted at dmotta@grsm.com

When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

August 13, 2019 — Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocs
Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

November 10, 2016 — C. Lily Schurra – Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
In a recent policyholder-friendly decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found coverage under an exception to the faulty workmanship exclusion in an all-risk policy. The decision provided the insureds with millions to cover the cost of replacing the faulty work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of C. Lily Schurra, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
Ms. Schurra may be reached at cls@sdvlaw.com

White and Williams Announces Partner and Counsel Promotions

February 19, 2024 — White and Williams LLP
PHILADELPHIA–White and Williams LLP is pleased to announce the promotion of the following attorneys: Paul A. Briganti, Patrick A. Haggerty, Timothy (T.J.). Keough, Randy J. Maniloff, and Eric A. Sauter. All five attorneys have been promoted to the Firm’s partnership. The Firm has also promoted Michael L. DeBona, Lynndon K. Groff, and Susan J. Zingone from Associate to Counsel. “All of our new Partners and Counsel enrich the firm both internally and externally. They have demonstrated a deep commitment to providing our clients with best-in-class service and through their dedication and leadership earned elevation to partner and counsel at White and Williams,” said firm Managing Partner Tim Davis. “We look forward to their many continued successes and contributions to the Firm.” Paul A. Briganti practices out of the Philadelphia office and represents national and international insurance companies in coverage disputes and complex commercial litigation. He has significant experience litigating and advising clients on issues arising under various lines of coverage, including general liability, cyber, D&O, employers liability, commercial auto and homeowners. In addition, Paul is an editor of the firm’s Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter newsletter and a regular pro bono volunteer with the Senior Law Center. He received his J.D. from Villanova University School of Law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

August 19, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin, Laura C. Williams, & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (filed 8/13/15, Case No. S208130), the California Supreme Court held a government entity is not categorically immune from liability where the plaintiff alleges a dangerous condition of public property caused the plaintiff’s injury, but did not cause the third party conduct which precipitated the accident. The case arises out of a traffic collision by which the negligent driving of a third party motorist caused another car to careen into a tree planted in the center median owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles (“City”). Of the four occupants in the car that collided with the tree, three died and the fourth was badly injured. The parents of two of the occupants sued the City for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code Section 835. The plaintiffs alleged the roadway was in a dangerous condition because the trees in the median were too close to the traveling portion of the road, posing an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who might lose control of their vehicles. The City successfully moved for summary judgment, which plaintiffs appealed. On review, the Court of Appeal affirmed holding the tree was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law because there was no evidence that the tree had contributed to the criminally negligent driving of the third party motorist. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Laura C. Williams and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com And Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

August 26, 2015 — Robert S. Rucci – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP welcomes new partner Robert S. Rucci. Mr. Rucci joins Haight’s San Diego office in the Construction Law, General Liability and Risk Management & Insurance Law Practice Groups. For 25 years, Mr. Rucci has specialized in defending design professionals, businesses and their employees in addition to representing clients against declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith litigation. During his career, he has tried 60 cases to defense verdict and successfully resolved countless matters via mediation, arbitration and settlement conference. His extensive litigation experience is invaluable to our clients. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP 402 West Broadway Suite 1850 San Diego, CA 92101 www.hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Rucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Rucci may be contacted at rrucci@hbblaw.com

Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

October 15, 2014 — Justin Doom – Bloomberg
Solar Power Inc. (SOPW), a renewable-energy developer backed by China’s LDK Solar Co., has agreed to build a solar farm with 30 megawatts of capacity in Inner Mongolia. Solar Power’s Xinyu Xinwei New Energy unit signed a construction agreement with Alxa League ZhiWei PV Power Co., the Roseville, California-based company said today in a statement. The project is expected to connect to the power grid by the end of March. Financial terms weren’t disclosed. It’s Solar Power’s second accord this month to build a project in China’s Inner Mongolia Region. Solar Power also is building a 20-megawatt power plant in Wulaichabu City. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Doom, Bloomberg
Mr. Doom may be contacted at jdoom1@bloomberg.net

Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

February 06, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have stated to clients on many occasions that paper is a lawyer’s best friend. Because of a recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court, I should modify that to the correct paper is a lawyer’s best friend. In Commonwealth v. AMEC Civil, LLC, AMEC sued the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) seeking more than $21 million in damages. The Mecklenburg County Circuit Court granted AMEC almost all of its damages and found that AMEC’s notice of intent to make a claim was proper under the Virginia Code even if it was not in the proper form. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES