SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

2023 Construction Outlook: Construction Starts Expected to Flatten

February 06, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
There’s a lot to worry about going into 2023 according to Dodge Data & Analytics in its 2023 Construction Industry Outlook:

• Inflation
• More oil production cuts from OPEC
• Relations between China and Taiwan
• Further escalation of the war in Ukraine

While the immediate forecast is choppy, if things stabilize in the back half of 2023, according to Dodge Data & Analytics, total construction starts in the U.S. should remain flat in 2023. While “flat” may not sound particularly optimistic, it is, when you consider that total construction starts in 2022 were up 17%. “We’re sitting at 14- to 15-year highs in the Dodge Momentum Index,” stated Richard Branch, Chief Economist at Dodge Data, “so it should provide some semblance of confidence and reassurance that developers and owners are continuing to put projects into the queue despite the fact that we’re concerned about what might happen when interest rates keep rising and the economy slows down in 2023.” Labor shortages will continue to be a big hurdle for the construction industry, according to Branch, but a bright spot is in material prices that peaked in 2021 but generally fell throughout 2022. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

CDJ’s #4 Topic of the Year: KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
KB Home, another case that clarified California’s SB 800, was analyzed by Amy Kuo Alexander of Gordon & Rees LLP in her article on “New Developments Related to SB 800.” Read the full story... KB Home was also discussed by Cvitanovic and Stefco of Haight Brown & Bonesteel in their article on Burch. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

January 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. 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

---

Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

September 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Los Angeles Register, “Southern California homeowners often have repairs or improvements done to their property without getting the required building permits,” which sometimes, may be fine, but other times it leads to disastrous problems. The Register used an example of a San Clemente couple who had issues selling their home when a building inspector found that weep screeds were covered up by a cement deck installed by a contractor. The contractor also failed to get building permits for the work that was done. The buyer stated that repairs needed to be done prior to the sale. According to Mac MacKenzie, an agent at Coldwell Banker in Irvine, the situation is not uncommon: “We’ve had (permit problems) kill deals before, and we’ve had them almost kill deals. If it’s serious enough, it can stop a transaction from closing.” Permits are generally required “for any alteration, major repairs or new construction,” according to the Register, while they are not necessary “for minor repairs, such as fixing leaky pipes, painting, new carpeting or new kitchen countertops.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

July 20, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.



The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.



Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.



After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.



The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”



Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”



The court concluded:



Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Manhattan Condo Lists for Record $150 Million

February 18, 2015 — Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Manhattan’s ultra-luxury condo market has a new high-water mark: $150 million. That’s the price set by developer Chetrit Group for a 21,500-square-foot (2,000-square-meter) triplex at the former Sony Building in Midtown, according to documents filed with the New York State attorney general’s office. It would be a record for a residential listing, topping a $130 million offering planned at Zeckendorf Development Co.’s 520 Park Ave. As luxury apartments proliferate in Manhattan, builders are offering their premier units at ever-higher prices as a way of standing out from the crowd, said Jonathan Miller, president of New York appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. So far, the highest price ever paid for a condominium in the city is $100.5 million, a deal completed in December for a duplex penthouse at the One57 tower. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net

---

Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

August 10, 2021 — Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLP
Few courts have yet decided insurance coverage issues in litigation involving per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But yesterday, in Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Chemicals, Inc., No. H-20-3493, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146702 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum & Forster) had a duty to defend Chemicals, Inc. against firefighters’ allegations that they were injured by PFAS contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The AFFF claims are consolidated in the multi-district litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, and you can read more about that here. Turning to the decision from August 5, 2021, Crum & Forster issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Chemicals, Inc. for liability arising from bodily injury, to the extent that injury “first occur[ed] during the ‘policy period[.]’” Further, a “Continuous or Progressive Damage or Injury” condition in the policies stated, “If the date cannot be determined upon which such ‘bodily injury’ … first occurred[,] then, … such ‘bodily injury’ … will be deemed to have occurred or existed, … before the ‘policy period’.” The Crum & Forster policies were issued between 2011 and 2019. The complaints in the MDL do not specify when the firefighters were allegedly exposed to PFAS-containing AFFF or when the firefighters first allegedly manifested symptoms of such exposure. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Times Square Alteration Opened Up a Can of Worms

January 26, 2017 — Nadine M. Post – Engineering News-Record
Compared with some of its Manhattan neighbors, a high-rise on the corner of Seventh Avenue and West 47th Street looks standard. Like many buildings in Times Square, the 41-story retail-entertainment-hotel development, nearly topped out, has a tower springing from a boxy base that will sport a flashy billboard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

---