SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Prompt Payment More Likely on Residential Construction Jobs Than Commercial or Public Jobs

May 02, 2022 — Levelset
NEW ORLEANS, May 02, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In construction, no line of work guarantees prompt and in-full payments, but contractors working on residential jobs say their rate of prompt payment is significantly better than commercial or public jobs, according to the 2022 Levelset Cash Flow and Payment Report. However, the report revealed that residential construction jobs require increased communication to improve the chance of prompt payment when compared to commercial or public jobs. Contractors working on residential projects are more than twice as likely as those working on public projects to report getting paid within 30 days, with residential construction contractors saying they are paid in 30 days or less 48% of the time and public construction contractors saying that only happens 21% of the time. Significantly slow payments of 60 days or more are three times more likely on public construction projects than on residential construction projects, according to the survey participants. Residential contractors say it happens rarely, just 6% of the time, while public project contractors say it happens nearly one out of five times (18%). For more information about the report and a detailed summary of findings, please visit: www.levelset.com/survey About Levelset Levelset's mission is to empower contractors to always get what they earn. Levelset's products help millions in the construction industry each year to make payment paperwork and compliance easier, get cash faster, monitor the risk on jobs and contractors, and better understand payment processes and rules. The results are faster payments, access to capital, and fewer surprises. Founded in 2012, Levelset is based in New Orleans, Louisiana, with offices in Austin, Texas, and Cairo, Egypt, and is owned and operated by Procore Technologies, Inc. For more information, visit www.levelset.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Reptile Theory in Practice

September 06, 2021 — Nicholas P. Hurzeler - Lewis Brisbois
The “Reptile Theory” is a trial strategy that attempts to use fear and anger to make the jury dislike the defendant so strongly they will award a plaintiff a grossly excessive amount of damages. The plaintiff’s attorney will seek to activate the jurors’ “survival mode” instincts by presenting the defendant’s conduct as highly dangerous and worthy of punishment. The defendant’s conduct will be portrayed as a threat to the safety of the general public, and the award as a deterrent needed to protect the community at large. The Reptile Theory appeals to the jurors’ emotions in place of any rational, impartial evaluation of the evidence. The term “Reptile Theory” originated in the writings of nuero-physiologist Paul D. MacLean in the 1950s, who suggested that one major part of the brain consisted of a “reptilian complex” that controlled instinctive behaviors involved in aggression, dominance, and territoriality. Then in the 2009 publication “Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution” by David Ball and Don Keenan, the authors first described the “Reptile Theory” in the context of litigation. Since then it has become a hot topic in litigation as defense counsel develop methods to combat “Reptile” tactics resulting in runaway jury awards. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction

April 19, 2021 — Joshua Jacobsen - Construction Executive
Prior to the pandemic, the construction industry was experiencing mental and behavioral health stressors and increasing fatalities. The pandemic is contributing to these underlying conditions threatening the safety and wellbeing of the construction workforce:

• Workers in construction occupations experienced 1,066 fatalities, a 6.3% increase and the highest total since 2007. Across all industries slips, trips and falls resulted in 880 deaths, a 11.3% increase from the previous year;
• Increasing mental health challenges as evidenced by growing percentage of Americans starting therapy; and
• Rising risk of relapse to substance use disorders and especially opioid overdoses. Deaths from unintentional overdoses of non-medical drug or alcohol use while at work climbed slightly to 313, marking the seventh straight annual increase in this category.

Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Jacobsen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Jacobsen may be contacted at jjacobsen@holmesmurphy.com

---

Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals

December 11, 2023 — Jason Taylor & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub Lieberman
In this appeal brought before the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurance carrier client (the “Carrier” or “Client”), affirming an award of summary disposition in favor of the Carrier in a coverage lawsuit. The coverage lawsuit involved a priority dispute between the Carrier and another insurer over which company’s policy had responsibility to cover the defense of their mutual insured, a heating and cooling contractor (the “Insured”) in an underlying lawsuit alleging carbon monoxide poisoning. The Carrier issued a contractor’s pollution liability policy and the other insurer issued a commercial general liability policy to the Insurer. Both the Carrier and the other insurer filed cross-motions for summary disposition in the trial court on the priority of coverage issue. The trial court granted the Client’s motion, holding that the CGL carrier was the primary insurer based on the language in the policies’ “other insurance” clauses. The trial court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument to apply the “total policy insuring intent” or “closest to the risk” tests—tests which Michigan courts have not adopted. Specifically, the court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument that the Client’s contractor’s pollution liability policy was more specifically tailored to the loss in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court also rejected CGL carrier’s alternative argument that the “other insurance” clauses in the policies were irreconcilable, requiring a pro rata allocation based on the respective limits of the policies. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman and Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

February 19, 2019 — Patrick M. McDermott & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned. EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

October 11, 2017 — Tom Sawyer - Engineering News-Record
A tech start-up recently announced that it has been granted seven U.S. patents for a system that applies a “deep learning” algorithm to examine corporate e-mail databases and flag those with message fields or attachments containing language that might increase risk for a company involved in a federal discrimination lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Sawyer, ENR
Mr. Sawyer may be contacted at sawyert@enr.com

---

Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

November 23, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Teaming agreements are practical and useful agreements on public projects where a prime contractor teams with a subcontractor for purposes of submitting a bid or proposal in response to a solicitation. The prime contractor and subcontractor work together to pursue that solicitation and have the government award the contract to the prime contractor. The teaming agreement allows for information to be confidentially shared (estimating and pricing, construction methodologies, systems, and suggestions, value engineering, etc.) where the subcontractor agrees that it will only pursue the solicitation with the prime contractor. In other words, the subcontractor ideally is not going to submit pricing to another prime contractor proposing or bidding on the same project and is not going to share information the prime contractor has furnished to it. Likewise, the prime contractor is not going to use the subcontractor’s information for purposes of finding another subcontractor at a lower price and is agreeing to use its good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract with the subcontractor if it is awarded the project. This is all memorialized in the teaming agreement. The potential problem lies with language that requires the parties to use their good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract if the project is awarded to the prime contractor. In essence, this can become a disfavored “agreement to agree” to a future contract that could allow either party to create an argument to back out of the deal under the auspice that they could not come to terms with the subcontract. 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

---

Using the Prevention Doctrine

April 22, 2019 — David Erhart - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
The following scenario happens regularly in the construction industry. A contractor on a project reaches out to a subcontractor to perform work. Excited about the prospect of performing the work, the subcontractor signs a contract and puts it nose to the grindstone. After dutifully completing the work the subcontractor turns to the contractor and asks to be paid. But, the contractor refuses saying that there is a provision in the subcontract that says the contractor is only obligated to pay the subcontractor if the contractor receives payment from the owner. So the contractor has completed the work, but has no money to show for it. One potential remedy for a subcontractor in this situation is the use of the prevention doctrine. “Under the prevention doctrine, ‘if a promisor prevents or hinders fulfillment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived or excused.’” Cox v. SNAP, Inc., 859 F.3d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 7171, 725 (4th Cir. 2000)). “Put simply, ‘where a party to a contract is the cause of the failure of the performance of the obligation due him or her, that party cannot in any way take advantage of that failure.’” Haddon Hous Assocs v. United States, 711 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245; Williston, § 39:4). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Erhart, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Erhart may be contacted at derhart@grsm.com

---