Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Understanding the Miller Act

February 26, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
John P. Ahlers of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, explained who is covered by the Miller Act in regards to Federal public works projects on the firm’s blog. Ahlers stated that “[t]he Miller Act requires that all general contractors post payment bonds on contracts in excess of $25,000.00.” In his blog post, Ahlers goes over coverage and the distinction between subcontractor and supplier. Ahlers commented, “While, at first glance, it may seem fairly simple to sort out who is and who is not covered by the Miller Act payment bond, the analysis can at times be factually and legally complex. This is an area that, if faced, the contractor should seek legal advice of an experienced construction lawyer before jumping to conclusions.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Newport Beach Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real Prevailed on a Demurrer in a Highly Publicized Shooting Case!

November 11, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara’s Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real prevailed on a Demurrer in a highly publicized shooting case. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and public nuisance against BWB&O’s clients, a highly recognized hospitality and lifestyle company with nightlife and restaurant venues, in addition to other celebrity defendants. Plaintiffs were the victims of a shooting that occurred by an unknown individual(s) outside and near the restaurant/venue owned by BWB&O’s clients. Plaintiffs alleged it was BWB&O’s clients that were responsible for the third parties’ criminal acts because BWB&O’s clients attracted more people than the venue’s capacity, causing people to occupy the street, sidewalk, and property nearby. Plaintiffs further alleged that BWB&O’s client should have anticipated or known that criminal conduct, including gun violence, would take place. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Policy Sublimit Does Not Apply to Business Interruption Loss

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Refusing to give the sublimit in a flood policy an expansive reading, the court found that the sublimit did not apply to business interruption loss. Federal-Mogul Corp. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137394 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 8, 2015). The insured's facility in Thailand was damaged by flood. The parties stipulated that the insured suffered a loss of $64,500,000, which included $39,406,467 in property damage and $25,093,533 in time element loss (i.e., economic loss due to an inability to operate normally). The insurer paid $30 million, stating that the High Hazard flood zone provision in the policy limited the amount owed under the policy. The insured argued the High Hazard sublimit applied only to physical loss or damage caused by the flood, and not to time element loss. Therefore, the insured was entitled to judgment on its time element loss claim for $29,093,533. The insurer argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the High Hazard sublimit applied to all loss caused by flood, including time element loss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

November 27, 2023 — Michael S. Levine, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Timely notice is an important first step in a successful insurance recovery. But insurance policies are not always straightforward in identifying how, when, and to whom notice must be provided. Some states may also impose additional procedural hurdles, including requiring policyholders to contact their insurers before filing suit (the idea behind this requirement is that it may avoid litigation). Failing to comply with pre-suit requirements can hurt the policyholder’s recovery, as illustrated in a recent decision from the Northern District of Texas. In NewcrestImage Holdings, LLC v. The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company, No. 2:23-cv-039-BR (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023), the court considered whether NewcrestImage had forfeited its right to recover attorneys’ fees by failing to give Travelers pre-suit notice. NewcrestImage had filed suit against Travelers to obtain coverage for damage to its hotel property arising out of Winter Storm Uri. In its answer, Travelers asserted that NewcrestImage failed to provide the insurer with pre-suit notice as required under the Texas Insurance Code, and that if NewcrestImage successfully proved it was entitled to coverage, NewcrestImage’s failure to provide pre-suit notice precluded it from recovering attorneys’ fees. Travelers later moved to strike the claim for attorneys’ fees on that basis. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Orleans Terror Attack Lawsuit Targets Engineer Mott MacDonald, Contractor and City

February 03, 2025 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Seven victims who survived the New Year's morning terrorist truck attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans have filed a negligence lawsuit in state court, in that city, blaming city officials, engineer Mott MacDonald and a contractor for the deaths. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record

Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

June 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
rime contracts typically contain a constructive change directive clause. A constructive change directive also goes by the acronym CCD (and for purposes of this article, such changes will be referred to as a CCD), however it can also be known as a Work Change Directive, Interim Directed Change, or Directed Change, depending on the type of contract beign utilized. An owner can order a CCD, versus issuing the contractor a formalized change order, as a mechanism to direct the prime contractor to perform work if there is a dispute as to contract amount, time, or scope. Just because an owner issues a CCD does not mean the owner is conceding that it owes the contractor a change order. Rather, the owner is ordering the CCD as a mechanism to keep the project moving forward notwithstanding a disagreement with the contractor as to the price or time impact. Standard form construction agreements such as the AIA, EJCDC, or ConsensusDocs, will have a standard provision dealing with change directives where the owner can order the contractor to proceed with work in the absence of a change order. In the federal government context, most construction contracts will contain a changes clause that authorizes the government to formally direct changes; and, there is authority for contractors to equitably pursue a constructive change based on certain directives or instructions issued by the government. Naturally, from the contractor’s perspective, this CCD provision is an important consideration as it could likely require the contractor to finance a change to the owner’s project, particularly if there is a scope dispute where the owner does not believe the contractor is entitled to any change order. 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

Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

November 26, 2014 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
On November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond. Background In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

Bremer Whyte’s Newport Beach Team Prevails on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case!

September 02, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations on another win to Orange County Partners Jonathan Cothran and Rachel Mihai for prevailing on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a wrongful death case! Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging negligence and vicarious liability against BWB&O’s client, a licensed electrical contractor. BWB&O’s client installed a solar system at the Plaintiffs’ home in January 2018. In October 2018, an electrical fire broke out at the home in an upstairs bedroom. Tragically, the family’s father perished in the fire when he entered the home after the fire started. Plaintiffs alleged that BWB&O’s client was liable for the fire and Plaintiffs’ resulting injuries due to its electrical work on the solar system at the home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES