SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

March 18, 2019 — Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation Strategist
In Hexagon Holdings Inc. v. Carlisle Syntec, Inc. No. 2017-175-Appeal, 2019 R.I. Lexis 14 (January 17, 2019), the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, discussing claims associated with allegedly defective construction, addressed issues involving intended beneficiaries to contracts and the application of the economic loss doctrine. The court held that, based on the evidence presented, the building owner, Hexagon Holdings, Inc. (Hexagon) was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the subcontract between the general contractor (A/Z Corporation) and the subcontractor, defendant McKenna Roofing and Construction, Inc. (McKenna). In addition, the court held that, in the context of this commercial construction contract, the economic loss doctrine applied and barred Hexagon’s negligence claims against McKenna. Approximately nine years after Hexagon entered into a contract with A/Z Corporation for the construction of a building, Hexagon filed suit against A/Z Corporation’s roofing installation subcontractor, McKenna, and the manufacturer of the roofing system. Hexagon alleged that the roof began to leak shortly after McKenna installed it. Notably, Hexagon did not sue A/Z Corporation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

---

What Every Project Participant Needs to Know About Delay Claims

August 05, 2024 — Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute Resolver
A “delay” on a construction project is defined as the stretching out of the time for completion of certain key milestone scopes of work which can impact the completion date of an entire project, due to some circumstances or events that were not reasonably anticipated when the project began. 2 Construction Law ¶ 6.01 (Matthew Bender, 2024). While delays can be caused by any number of events, the most common are defective plans and specifications; design changes; severe weather and other, similar unforeseeable events; unforeseen or differing site conditions; unavailability of materials or labor; labor inefficiencies or stoppages; contractor negligence; and owner influences, including construction changes or outright interference by the owner or its agents. If the project schedule is not recovered following a delay, then the project schedule will likely be extended, resulting in an increase in the contractor’s costs of performance. A contractor that has experienced a delay on a project can take certain actions to pursue recovery of any damages the contractor may have incurred. However, to do so it is important to understand the different types of delays and the methods for establishing the delays. I. Types of Delays Delays may be categorized as (1) critical versus non-critical delays, (2) excusable versus non-excusable delays, and (3) compensable versus non-compensable delays. A critical delay is a delay that affects the project completion date and delays the entire project. In essence, a critical delay is one that will extend the critical path of a project. A non-critical delay is a delay that has no effect on the project’s critical path. Courts have recognized that delays to work not on the critical path will generally not delay the completion of a project. G.M. Shupe, Inc. v U.S., 5 Cl. Ct. 662, 728 (1984). Such a non-critical delay may affect the completion of certain activities, but does not affect the completion date of the entire project. In order for a delay to provide the basis for a claim for additional time or money, the delay must impact critical path activities on the project schedule. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

---

Florida Lawmakers Fail to Reach Agreement on Condominium Safety Bill

March 14, 2022 — Community Associations Institute
Falls Church, March 11, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Members of the Florida legislature did not reach an agreement on legislation that would require building inspections and mandatory reserve studies for certain condominium and cooperative communities prior to this session's adjournment, despite the tireless efforts from Sen. Jennifer Bradley (R-Orange Park) and Rep. Daniel Perez (R-Miami) as well as CAI advocates to pass legislation that would contribute to condominium safety after the tragic collapse of Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Fla., last June. The Virginia General Assembly recently passed legislation introduced by Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax, VA) that requires the Virginia Housing Commission to study condominium safety issues, specifically building inspections. The Maryland legislature is considering funding for condominium buildings in need of critical repairs, while Hawaii is considering building inspection requirements for condominiums. Learn more about CAI's efforts to improve condominium safety by visiting www.caionline.org/condosafety. About Community Associations Institute Since 1973, Community Associations Institute (CAI) has been the leading provider of resources and information for homeowners, volunteer board leaders, professional managers, and business professionals in the more than 355,000 homeowners associations, condominiums, and housing cooperatives in the United States and millions of communities worldwide. With more than 42,000 members, CAI works in partnership with 36 legislative action committees and 63 affiliated chapters within the U.S., Canada, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates as well as with housing leaders in several other countries, including Australia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. A global nonprofit 501(c)(6) organization, CAI is the foremost authority in community association management, governance, education, and advocacy. Our mission is to inspire professionalism, effective leadership, and responsible citizenship—ideals reflected in community associations that are preferred places to call home. Visit us at www.caionline.org, and follow us on Twitter and Facebook @CAISocial. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Bank Sues over Defective Windows

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis replaced 498 windows in its building in 2008. According to a consultant, they all have to be replaced again. The bank estimates that the damages will exceed $1.5 million, and they are suing the contractor who installed them, the window manufacturer, and others. The windows were replaced to provide greater blast protection. But in 2011, the bank found that the special glass used was beginning to delaminate. The Federal Reserve is seeking to have all of the windows replaced “with windows that meet the specifications of the contract.” McCarthy Building Construction says that it is attempting to resolve things. The contractor noted that it is “continuing to work with the Federal Reserve and other parties and hope we can resolve this matter in a timely manner.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

“Bound by the Bond”

September 02, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A New York trial court granted judgment in favor of a performance bond surety on a construction project, based upon the failure of the claiming party to abide by the terms of the bond. The “AIA Document A312” bond form – described by the court (quoting surety law authority) to be “one of the clearest, most definitive, and widely used type of traditional common law ‘performance bonds’ in private construction” – contains various procedures which must be honored as a “condition precedent to an action to recover” on the bond/against the surety. One of those prerequisites is a “declaration of default” concerning the contractor principal (here, a subcontractor). The case involved the construction of an 85-story skyscraper in midtown Manhattan, and the performance of the subcontract for the building’s superstructure. The bonded contract was at a value of approximately $25,000,000 and obligated the sub to provide a performance bond “in a form similar to the [A312 bond],” and which was otherwise satisfactory to the obligee/construction manager. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

January 11, 2021 — Joshua Lindsay, Crowell & Moring & Meagan Bachman, Crowell & Moring - ENR
We are 10 months into the global pandemic. Given the magnitude of additional costs and upended expectations and risk-allocation, we foresee a wave of disputes coming soon. Whether it is large or small depends heavily on how well project team members handle the COVID-19 project impacts now. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lindsay, Crowell & Moring (ENR) and Meagan Bachman, Crowell & Moring (ENR) Ms. Bachman may be contacted at mbachman@crowell.com Mr. Lindsay may be contacted at joshlindsay@crowell.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/16/24) – Algorithms Affect the Rental Market, Robots Aim to Lower Construction Costs, and Gen Z Struggle to Find Their Own Space

February 12, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, New York’s Prompt Payment Act comes into question, vacancy rates rise in commercial office space, the Biden administration applies project labor agreements on certain federal construction projects, and more!

• The Biden administration announced the implementing on an executive order that will require project labor agreements on federal construction projects costing $35 million or more, likely resulting in PLAs being required on a majority of large federal jobs. (Zachary Phillips, Construction Dive)
• Boeing plans to increase quality inspections of its 737 Max 9 aircraft, following a series of manufacturing flaws that have led some airlines to hold off aircraft purchases or go with its European rival, Airbus. (Ken Sweet, AP)
• 31% of Generation Z (generally defined as those born between 1996 and 2012) adults live at home with parents because they can’t afford to buy or rent their own space. (Jessica Dickler, CNBC)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

February 18, 2020 — Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law News
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds. The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit. The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit. Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com

---