Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Nevada’s Construction Defect Law

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Constructive Dive reported on the effects of Nevada’s new construction defect law, which is a revision of the original 1995 Homeowners Protection Act: “The new rules more tightly define ‘defect,’ strike the requirement for the losing party to pay the other’s legal fees, and require homeowners to be much more specific about the defects they claim.” Furthermore, it reduces “the length of time a homeowner has to make a construction-defects claim at six years, down from the 10-year statute of limitations in the original law.” Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Washington legislators are debating revising their current construction defect laws, according to Construction Dive. “If the Colorado measure passes, homeowners will have to go through arbitration before they’ll be allowed to sue their builders. The proposal in Washington would require the owner making the claim to have a third-party professional inspect the defect before filing a suit,” Construction Dive reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Collaborating or Competing with Construction Tech Startups

November 15, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
I recently interviewed 20 experts and thought leaders about real estate and construction technology and innovation. Many of the interviewees talked about collaboration with startups and how to make the most of it. There’s a growing interest in construction technology. Construction tech firms have garnered $10 billion in investment funding from 2011 through early 2017, according to McKinsey & Company. AngelList, a startup and investor website, currently features over 13,000 companies with “construction” as a keyword. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

September 22, 2016 — William L. Porter – Porter Law Group Bulletin
For almost the last sixty years, the standard for bidding on California construction projects has been governed by the landmark case of Drennan v. Star Paving (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409; which generally states that the contractor bidding to perform work for a project owner is entitled to rely on the bids of subcontractors in formulating its own bid to do the work. Under the equitable legal doctrine of “promissory estoppel”, which serves as the foundation of the Drennan case, even though there was no actual “contract” between the contractor and subcontractor at the time of bid, the contractor was entitled to enforce the subcontractor’s bid in reliance on this doctrine. For bidding purposes, promissory estoppel serves as an equitable substitute for an actual contract. The courts have, since that time, allowed promissory estoppel to act as a substitute for the contract in public bidding because, in equity, when a contractor “reasonably” relies on a subcontractor’s bid in formulating its own bid, it would be unjust to allow the subcontractor to withdraw a bid on which the contractor had relied in submitting its own successful bid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Schools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms Continues

November 06, 2018 — Joanna Masterson - Construction Executive
A month after Hurricane Florence dumped more than 30 inches of rain on the Carolinas, Hurricane Michael delivered additional flash flooding, power outages and wind damage. While the construction-related impact of Hurricane Michael is still being assessed (stay tuned for more on that front in the coming weeks), Moody’s Analytics estimates total property damage from Florence at $17 billion to $22 billion, factoring in losses from homes, roads, crops, livestock, coal ash ponds and more. While it’s difficult to pinpoint which counties were hit the hardest, the majority of the damage was in the eastern coastal areas of North Carolina. According to Rob Beale, a vice president in W.M. Jordan’s Wilmington, North Carolina, office, Carteret and Onslow counties took the brunt of the storm, while Columbus and Brunswick counties experienced the biggest flooding impact. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Only eleven new homes have been started this year in the Pierre area in North Dakota. Last year saw 35 homes built in the same area. Brad Lawrence, the Fort Pierre Director of Public Works, blamed last year’s Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey, stating that “superstorm Sandy has just devoured a tremendous amount of building projects.” Area builders did say that some building materials went up in price after the storm, describing it as an “availability scare,” but some prices went down during the summer of 2013. Susan Ogan, of Neil Ogan Construction said that “our biggest thing is that people cannot find a lot they can afford and still say within their budget for the overall project.” Although single-family homes aren’t being built, apartments are. “We’ve got a 24-unit apartment going in as we speak,” said Mr. Lawrence. That, some feel, may be responsible for the lack of demand for single-family homes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

December 21, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A general contractor’s subcontract with its subcontractor should include a provision that entitles it to flow down liquidated damages assessed by the owner stemming from delays caused by the subcontractor. Such a provision does not mean the general contractor does not have to prove delays caused by the subcontractor or can arbitrarily allocate the amount or days it claims the subcontractor is liable. The general contractor still will need to reasonably establish the delays the subcontractor caused the critical path of the schedule, i.e., delayed the job. In addition to the right to flow down liquidated damages, the subcontract should also entitle the general contractor to recover its actual extended general conditions caused by the subcontractor’s delays (regardless of whether the owner assesses liquidated damages). The objective is that if the subcontractor delays the job, the subcontractor is liable for liquidated damages the general contractor is liable to the owner for in addition to the general contractor’s own delay damages. This is an important subcontractual provision so that the risk of delay caused by subcontractors is clearly flowed down to them in the subcontract. In a 1987 case, Hall Construction Co., Inc. v. Beynon, 507 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the subcontract at-issue contained language that stated, “The parties hereto agree that a supplier who delays performance beyond the time agreed upon in this Purchase Order shall have caused [general contractor] liquidated damages in the amount required of [general contractor] by their contract per day for each day such delay continues which sum the supplier hereby agrees to pay.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant

August 26, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Los Angeles Times, “A team of nuclear waste experts has found hundreds of serious defects at an Energy Department plant designed to turn millions of gallons of highly radioactive sludge into more stable solid glass at the former weapons facility in Hanford, Wash.” The report from 2014 was leaked, and stated that the “partially built facility is riddled with 362 ‘significant design vulnerabilities’ that could affect safety and future operations.” Thirty-seven experts led by two senior managers created the report. The Los Angeles Times reported that the report findings “are significant because the plant is part of the Energy Department’s 2013 initiative to fix earlier problems that stalled construction of other parts of the treatment system at Hanford, the site of the nation’s worst radioactive contamination.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

December 22, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Third Circuit ruled on Friday that differing “occurrence” definitions can have materially different meanings in the context of whether product defect claims constitute an “occurrence” triggering coverage under general liability insurance policies. The Court held in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that product claims against Sapa may be covered under policies that define an “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” However, the Court affirmed that coverage was not triggered under policies lacking the “expected” or “intended” limitation, reasoning that, under those policies, there was no question that the intentional manufacturing of Sapa’s product was too foreseeable to amount to an “accident.” The coverage dispute arose from an underlying action in which Marvin, a window manufacturer, alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Sapa sold it roughly 28 million defective aluminum window extrusions. Marvin alleged that the extrusions, which are metal frames that hold glass window panes in place, began to oxidize and break down shortly after they were installed, causing Marvin to incur substantial costs to fix and replace them. Marvin sued Sapa in 2010 in Minnesota federal court, and the parties settled in 2013. Sapa sought coverage for the settlement from its eight general liability insurers for the period implicated by Marvin’s allegations. The insurers denied coverage and Sapa brought suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES