SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

December 19, 2018 — Parker Rains - Construction Executive
Every year, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspects workplaces around the country for safety and occupational hazards. In 2017 alone, OSHA conducted 32,408 inspections – more than half of which were unprogrammed inspections. There are six reasons OSHA might come knocking on the door. They are (in order of priority):

1. imminent danger situations;
2. severe injuries and illnesses;
3. worker complaints;
4. referrals;
5. targeted inspections; and
6. follow-up inspections.

Reprinted courtesy of Parker Rains, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Rains may be contacted at prains@fbbins.com

---

Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

June 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.



The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.



Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”



On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.



Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Blockbuster Breakwater: Alternative Construction Method Put to the Test in Tampa Bay

August 14, 2023 — Scott Judy - Engineering News-Record
On June 7, 2023, Tampa Bay news reporters trekked to the Sunshine Skyway bridge for a Florida Dept. of Transportation press conference that would explain the mystery behind the hundreds of curiously shaped concrete structures lining nearly the entire length of the span’s mile-plus-long south fishing pier access road. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

May 24, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc, 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) , affectionately knows as Boston Harbor, is the seminal Supreme Court decision that held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not preempt government mandated project labor agreements (“PLAs”) if the government entity is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator. Boston Harbor has led to many believing that virtually all PLAs are legal when the government agency is a project owner or if the PLA involves a private project. However, does Boston Harbor really cut that far? In short, no. The primary issue in Boston Harbor was one of preemption. The Supreme Court addressed whether the NLRA preempted state and local laws and ordinances mandating PLAs. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court said there is no preemption if the government is acting as a market participant. What the Court did not address is whether other federal statutes invalidate PLAs. Specifically, whether PLA’s can run afoul of Section 8(e), the so called “hot cargo” provisions, of the NLRA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Are Construction Contract Limitation of Liability Clauses on the Way Out in Virginia?

March 11, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Remember BAE Systems and Fluor? This post is the third here at Construction Law Musings relating to this case which is a seemingly never-ending source for content. In the prior post discussing this case, the Court found that Va. Code 1-4.1:1 which bars waiver of a right to payment before work is performed did not apply because Fluor had provided work before execution of the contract or any change orders. In the most recent opinion in this long-running litigation, and after a motion to reconsider by Fluor that was granted, the Court re-examined this finding along with the contractual language found in the Limitation of Damages (LOD) clause and came to the opposite conclusion regarding certain change orders that remained unpaid by BAE. The Court first looked to the language of the contract itself and specifically the language in the LOD provision that states “Except as otherwise provided in this Subcontract.” The Court then looked at the change order provision and its typical equitable adjustment language and the mandatory nature of the equitable adjustment language. The Court found that the LOD provisions did not apply to change orders both because price increases due to change orders are not “damages” and because of the exception language in the LOD provision itself. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
With a 4-3 vote, the Glendale, Arizona city council “approved an agreement with the Tohono O’odham Nation to build a casino adjacent to the city,” according to the Arizona Public Media. The tribe, under the agreement, “will commit more than $25 million over the next 20 years to the city.” The agreement also stipulates that Glendale “will try to convince state and federal officials to end their opposition to the casino plans.” City Councilman Gary Sherwood stated that he “he doesn't believe the tribe has firm plans for construction yet, but he said he wouldn't be surprised if there was gaming on the site by next fall.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Nader Eghtesad v. State Farm General Insurance Company

September 28, 2020 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Eghtesad v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 51 Cal.App.5th 406 (June 29, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) based on an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend regarding a complaint filed by Nader Eghtesad. Mr. Eghtesad, representing himself, filed a form complaint checking a box for breach of contract. The complaint alleged two paragraphs contending that State Farm had acted in bad faith and concealed benefits due under a policy issued to a former tenant who rented space in a building owned by Eghtesad. Eghtesad was an additional insured under the tenant’s policy. In that regard, the building was damaged during the time that the building was rented and Eghtesad tendered a claim under the State Farm policy contending that he was an additional insured pursuant to the terms of the lease with the tenant. According to Eghtesad, State Farm advised him that he could only make a claim for slander against the former tenant and that coverage was not afforded for his property damage claim. After Eghtesad filed his form complaint, State Farm demurred to the complaint and argued that it did not state facts supporting a cause of action for breach of contract. Ultimately, the trial court agreed with State Farm and entered an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, such that a judgment was entered in State Farm’s favor. Due to health reasons, Eghtesad was never able to file an opposition to the demurrer, despite two extensions of time provided by the trial court intended to allow Eghtesad time to retain counsel and to recover from injuries sustained as a result of an automobile accident. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

---