Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

January 27, 2020 — Ted R. Gropman & Christine Z. Fan - ConsensusDocs
Construction contracts often include a “no damage for delay” clause that denies a contractor the right to recover delay-related costs and limits the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time for noncontractor-caused delays to a project’s completion date. Depending on the nature of the delay and the jurisdiction where the project is located, the contractual prohibition against delay damages may well be enforceable. This article will explore whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date. Courts are split as to whether damages for a contractor’s “acceleration” efforts are distinguishable from “delay” damages such that they may be recovered under an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause. See, e.g., Siefford v. Hous. Auth. of Humboldt, 223 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 1974) (disallowing the recovery of acceleration damages under a no-damage-for-delay clause); but see Watson Elec. Constr. Co. v. Winston-Salem, 109 N.C. App. 194 (1993) (allowing the recovery of acceleration damages despite a no-damage-for-delay clause). The scope and effect of a no-damage-for-delay clause depend on the specific laws of the jurisdiction and the factual circumstances involved. There are a few ways for a contractor to circumvent an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause to recover acceleration damages. First, the contractor may invoke one of the state’s enumerated exceptions to the enforceability of the clause. It is helpful to keep in mind that most jurisdictions strictly construe a no-damage-for-delay clause to limit its application. This means that, regardless of delay or acceleration, courts will nonetheless permit the contractor to recover damages if the delay is, for example, of a kind not contemplated by the parties, due to an unreasonable delay, or a result of the owner’s fraud, bad faith, gross negligence, active interference or abandonment of the contract. See Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155, 160 (Colo. App. 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. Mo. P. R. Co., 668 F.2d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 1982); Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Iowa S. Utils. Co., 355 F. Supp. 376, 396 (S.D. Iowa 1973). Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Christine Z. Fan, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at gropmant@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Not So Fast, My Friend: Pacing and Concurrent Delay

April 25, 2022 — William E. Underwood - ConsensusDocs
When critical path activities are delayed by the owner (or another party), contractors will sometimes “pace,” or slow down, other activities to match the owner-caused delay. After all, why should the contractor hurry up and wait? But paced activities can often appear as concurrent delays on a project’s overall schedule. And all too often, contractors fail to contemporaneously document their efforts to pace work. Not only can this create avoidable disputes with owners and other contractors, but it can also create future roadblocks to the recovery of delay damages. This article examines the interplay between pacing and concurrent delay[1] and what contractors should do to minimize risk and preserve their rights to obtain more than a simple time extension for project delays. Pacing versus Concurrent Delay As a basic matter, most contracts allocate responsibility/liability for a schedule delay to the party that caused the delay. For example, if an owner is contractually required to provide equipment for a contractor to install, then the owner likely bears responsibility for any delays caused if the equipment is delivered late. If, however, the contractor was also behind schedule on other activities during this time and the project would have been delayed regardless of the owner’s late deliveries, then the delay is probably concurrent. And the contractor will generally be entitled to only an extension of time, and no other monetary relief. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

Homebuilder Predictions for Tallahassee

October 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The cost of putting up a new home in Tallahassee has risen, but Joe Manausa thinks that builders might be putting up homes that will cost more than home buyers are able to pay. He notes that permits and sales are up, but numbers are still well below those in 2006. Mr. Manusa thinks that Tallahassee could face “a need (demand) for homes priced below $300,000, but a glut of supply for those priced above $300,000.” He says that home builders “need to target construction opportunities below that price point.” He notes that average price of new construction is $272,000, but resales are going for $161,000, which puts quite a premium on a new home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

September 23, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste. The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

October 27, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself with the title. The next case, Aluma Systems Concrete Construction of California v. Nibbi Bros., Inc., California Court of Appeals for the First District, Case No. A145734 (August 16, 2016), discusses the interplay between indemnity provisions and the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule. The worker’s compensation exclusivity rule generally provides that worker’s compensation insurance is the exclusive remedy of employees for injuries or death arising out of the course and scope of their employment. In the Aluma case, the California Court of Appeals, addressed what happens when a subcontractor’s employees are injured on a project, sue the general contractor, and the general contractor, pursuant to an indemnity provision in its subcontract, tenders the claim to the subcontractor whose worker’s compensation insurance has already paid the employees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Patti Santelle Honored by Rutgers School of Law with Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award

March 01, 2021 — Patricia Santelle - White and Williams
White and Williams is proud to announce that Patti Santelle, Chair Emeritus, will be honored by the Rutgers School of Law-Camden Alumni Association with the 2020 Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award. The Armitage Award was established in 1983 in memory of Armitage, who, with a group of interested citizens, founded both the South Jersey Law School in 1926 and its companion College of South Jersey in 1927. Past recipients include governors, member of Congress, state and federal judges, and industry leaders. Patti, a 1985 graduate, is a Co-Chair of the Executive Committee of the newly established Rutgers Law Alumnae Network and a Past Chancellor and long-time member of the Board of the Rutgers-Camden Law Alumni Association. While in law school, she was President of the Student Bar Association, winner of the Hunter Advanced Moot Court Competition and a member of the National Moot Court Team. In 2010, Patti received the Scarlet Oak Meritorious Service Award from Rutgers University for her contributions as an alumni leader and student mentor at the law school. For the past seven years, she served as the Managing Partner and Chair of the Executive Committee at White and Williams, the first woman in the firm’s history and in the City of Philadelphia to serve in that role in a major law firm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patricia Santelle, White and Williams
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com

Texas School System Goes to Court over Construction Defect

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Zapata County Independent School District filed a lawsuit against Satterfield and Pontikes, claiming construction defect in two schools and two gyms that the company built for the district, according to the Laredo Morning Times. The company built two elementary schools, Zapata South and Fidel & Andrea Villarreal, and the gyms were built at Zapata North and Arturo L. Benavides. The case is scheduled to reach the courtroom in January, 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

May 30, 2018 — Erinn Contreras & Joy O. Siu - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
On May 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., No. S231549, slip. op. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2018). In it, the Court narrowly construed the “good faith” exception to the general rule that a direct contractor must make retention payments to its subcontractors within 10 days of receiving any retention payment. The exception provides that “[i]f a good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor, the direct contractor may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” Cal. Civ. Code section 8814(c). Reprinted courtesy of Erinn Contreras, Sheppard Mullin and Joy O. Siu, Sheppard Mullin Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES