Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

June 09, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a party breaches a non-compete agreement (with a non-solicitation clause), the non-breaching party typically moves for a temporary injunction. The breaching party is the party that signed the non-compete agreement, such as a former employee or consultant that agreed not to solicit its employer’s customer lists or referral sources upon leaving. The non-breaching party or the party moving for the temporary injunction is the party that is looking to protect its trade secret customer lists or referral sources, such as the employer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

December 18, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The project to install a suicide-deterrence net and perform other upgrades on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco now is expected to complete five years late and cost more than double the original contract price, its contractors say. The joint venture leading the project filed a breach-of-contract complaint against the agency that manages the bridge seeking $195 million in damages, while the agency counters that delays were caused by changes in the contractor’s ownership. 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

How To Fix Oroville Dam

January 04, 2018 — Henry W. Burke - Engineering News - Record
Originally Published by CDJ on March 22, 2017 On Sunday, Feb. 12, California officials ordered the immediate, mandatory evacuation of 188,000 residents from towns below the Oroville Dam. Two days later, when federal and state officials deemed the dam safe, the evacuation order was rescinded, and people were allowed to return to their homes. It isn't often that hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. have to leave their homes because of worries about a catastrophic structural failure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Henry W. Burke, ENR
Mr. Burke may be contacted at hwburke@cox.net

San Diego: Compromise Reached in Fee Increases for Affordable Housing

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A San Diego City Council committee has forwarded a revised plan to increase affordable housing in the city, which reduces the linkage fees increases, reported the U-T San Diego. The first proposal would have increased linkage fees by five times, while this new plan doubles current fees. The Times of San Diego reported that “[t]he fee had been halved in 1996 as an economic stimulus and was supposed to be reviewed annually, but wasn't.” However, Andrea Tevlin, the city of San Diego’s Independent Budget Analyst, estimated that “costs on developers would have jumped 400 percent to more than 700 percent, depending on the type of project.” The new proposal also contains exemptions for “developers of manufacturing facilities, warehouses and nonprofit hospitals from paying any fees at all,” according to U-T San Diego. “Developers of research and science-related projects would still have to pay fees, but they would be exempt from the proposed increase.” However, not everyone is satisfied by the compromise. “While the November 2013 proposal went too far, this new proposal doesn’t go far enough,” Tevlin told U-T San Diego. The vote had been deadlocked, 2-2, but will be forwarded to the main council because Republican Lori Zapf, committee chair, could break the tie. The new plan “created jointly by the San Diego Housing Commission and a group of business leaders called the Jobs Coalition, would increase the linkage fees’ annual yield from $2.2 million to an estimated $3.7 million and allow construction of 37 affordable housing units per year instead of 22,” U-T San Diego reported. Read the full story, U-T San Diego... Read the full story, Times of San Diego... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Will European Insurers’ Positive Response to COVID-19 Claims Influence US Insurers?

August 10, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Last month we wrote a piece concerning AXA’s agreement to pay COVID-19 related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in France after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under its insurance policies. AXA reportedly has already agreed to pay over 200 COVID-19 related claims. Another European insurer recently made headlines for similar reasons. Despite initially denying liability, Swiss insurance company, Helvetia Insurance, announced that most of its policyholders in the hospitality industry have accepted settlements following coverage disputes for COVID-19 related business interruption losses. The settlements reportedly included policyholders from Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. The positive response from the European insurers appears to have influenced the insurance industry across the continent. For instance, in the U.K., the Financial Conduct Authority announced that it is taking certain insurers to court to seek clarity as to coverage for COVID-19 related losses. In Germany, the government and a group of insurers reached an agreement whereby the government will pay for 70% of business interruption losses for policyholders in the hospitality industry, and the insurers will pay for half of the business interruption losses not covered by the government. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

February 16, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
What is a common law payment bond? A common law payment bond is a bond not required or governed by a statute. For example, if a prime contractor provides the owner a payment bond, that bond will be a statutory payment bond. On the other hand, if a subcontractor provides the general contractor with a payment bond, that bond will be a common law payment bond. Why? Because there is not a statute that specifically governs the requirements of a subcontractor’s payment bond given to a general contractor. The subcontractor’s payment bond is aimed at protecting the general contractor (and the general contractor’s payment bond) in the event the subcontractor fails to pay its own subcontractors and suppliers. The subcontractor’s payment bond will generally identify that claimants, as defined by the bond, are those subcontractors and suppliers the subcontractor has failed to pay. This common law payment bond is not recorded in the public records so sometimes it can be challenging for a claimant (anyone unpaid working under the subcontractor that furnished the bond) to obtain a copy of the bond. With that said, an unpaid claimant should consider pursuing a copy of this bond in certain situations, particularly if it may not have preserved a claim against the general contractor’s statutory payment bond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Subcontractors Aren’t Helpless

July 26, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As a construction attorney here in Virginia, I often have the pleasure of assisting subcontractors seeking advice on their all important contracts with general contractors. I often sense that these subcontractors feel that they are at the bottom of the food chain and don’t have the “clout” necessary to push back at all against the myriad clauses in these contracts that seek to push the risk downhill. “Pay if Paid” clauses, subordination of lien clauses (which may or may not be enforceable), indemnification language that seems to make the subcontractor liable for way too much, and the dreaded incorporation clauses , would seem to make the subcontractor hold one big “bag of risk” on any construction project. While this may seem bleak, never fear, as a subcontractor you are not totally helpless. Remember, you don’t have to take a job from a general contractor that you get a bad feeling about. Often the best indicator of whether you want to move forward is your “spidey sense” that something seems a bit off or that the GC is trying to cram too much down your throat. Use your experience in the construction industry to guide your contracting activities. It is better to avoid the bad job than to take it in the long run. If you are a quality subcontractor (and I know you are or you wouldn’t be reading this), other work will come along because general contractors need good subs to get their work done. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation

December 02, 2015 — William Kennedy – White and Williams LLP
Contracting parties can circumvent the limitations of common law tort doctrines by drafting contracts with language that details the allocation or shifting of the risk of tort loss. Properly composed, “broad form” contractual indemnity provisions can permit an Indemnitee to shift the full range of tort exposure – damages and defense fees and costs – if they have the kind of specificity set forth in Part Two of this series, "Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision." In most business transactions, however, both the Indemnitee and the Indemnitor want the indemnity obligation to be insured. Part Three: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation “Insured Contract Coverage” Although CGL policies do not typically cover an Insured’s breaches of contract, per se, most insurance policies do cover a policyholder’s “incidental contracts” or “insured contracts” under which the policyholder has an obligation to indemnify an Indemnitee. The business contract (as opposed to the insurance policy) should require the Indemnitor to take all steps necessary to have the Indemnitee identified as either a Covered Person, Insured, or Additional Insured on the Indemnitor’s applicable insurance policies. There are subtle, but potentially significant legal rights and responsibilities that hinge on whether an entity is a Covered Person, Insured, Additional Insured, or some other classification. Purported Indemnitees may need to consult insurance coverage counsel to ensure that they are seeking the appropriate status from the Indemnitor’s CGL insurer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Kennedy, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Kennedy may be contacted at kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES