SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Texas Legislative Update

July 19, 2017 — Matthew S.C. Moore & Justin (JD) D. Holzeauser – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The marquee fight between Lt. Governor Patrick and Speaker Straus, otherwise known as the 85th Regular Legislative Session, concluded on May 29, 2017. While the political clash over the controversial “bathroom bill” will continue during the special legislative session, this article is intended to provide a brief summary of the construction-related bills that passed during the regular session and a few notable ones that did not pass. A special session has been called by Governor Abbott, but no construction-related bills were included on the agenda. What Passed? HB 2121 – Attorney’s fees for state breach of contract claims. A contractor who prevails on a state breach of contract claim pursuant to Chapter 2260 of the Government Code, that is also valued at less than $250,000.00, may recover attorney’s fees. By using the word “may”, the bill implies that the award of attorney’s fees will be at the discretion of the administrative law judge. This bill became law on June 15, 2017. HB 1463 – Right to cure ADA violations. A person with a disability may assert a claim for discrimination based on a violation of the building and architectural standards established in Chapter 469 of the Government Code. However, this bill requires the claimant to provide the respondent written notice at least sixty (60) days before filing an action for the violation and further gives the respondent an opportunity to cure the alleged violation within the sixty (60) day period. The obvious benefit of this bill is that it allows the respondent, e.g., the owner or potentially the contractor, an opportunity to remediate the violation without incurring litigation costs. This bill becomes effective law on September 1, 2017. Reprinted courtesy of Matthew S.C. Moore, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Justin (JD) D. Holzeauser, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Moore may be contacted at mmoore@pecklaw.com Mr. Holzheauser may be contacted at jdholzheauser@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Riadh Ben Aissa, a former SNC-Lavalin executive, “pleaded guilty to charges including bribery and money laundering in Switzerland, according to a court filing released on Wednesday,” reported the Wall Street Journal. SNC-Lavalin “issued a separate statement acknowledging the court's acceptance of Mr. Ben Aissa's guilty pleas, adding it was recognized as ‘an injured party’ in the case and would recover an unspecified amount of money from him.” Chief Executive Robert Card stated, “SNC-Lavalin's goal is nothing less than to set a new standard for clean business in the engineering and construction industry,” as quoted by the Wall Street Journal. “We've adopted a zero-tolerance policy for ethics violations of any kind. We have the right people in place and systems and procedures which are designed to protect the company and its stakeholders from future fraudulent actions." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

January 10, 2018 — Richard W. Brown - SDV Blog
Argument before the Court of Appeals has now been scheduled for February 7, 2018, in Gilbane Building Co. v. St. Paul Insurance, with a long anticipated decision by New York’s highest court to be issued shortly thereafter. In its September 18, 2017 edition, Law360.com highlighted three major cases with significant implications on insurance coverage that will soon be decided by the New York Court of Appeals. Gilbane presents an opportunity for the Court to address the growing number of divergent decisions regarding the prerequisites for qualifying as an additional insured, as it considers an Appellate Division’s holding that a construction manager is not entitled to coverage as an additional insured under a contractor’s policy because the two companies did not enter into a direct contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com

---

AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021

February 01, 2021 — Sewar K. Sunnaa & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
SUMMARY Effective January 1, 2021, a new California law requires employers to notify employees about possible or known exposure to COVID-19 at the workplace. The law requires actual notification to employees within one day. In addition, the law requires notifications to local public health authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak. The law also gives Cal/OSHA a new emergency police power to issue Orders Prohibiting Use (“OPU”), permitting Cal/OSHA to close workplaces that constitute an imminent hazard to employees due to COVID-19. ANALYSIS AND GUIDANCE On January 1, 2021, a new California law took effect, which will enforce stringent new mandatory protocols governing notification of employees of COVID-19 exposures in the workplace. Until now, federal agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and state agencies such as the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal/OSHA”) have released guidance to help employers navigate employee training, workplace surveillance and temperature-taking, among many other issues, that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning January 1st, the new law places mandatory notice requirements of COVID-19 contact on all public and private employers under Labor Code Section 6409.6, with two exceptions: (1) health facilities, as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code and (2) employees whose regular duties include COVID-19 testing or screening, or who provide patient care to individuals who are known or suspected to have COVID-19. Reprinted courtesy of Sewar K. Sunnaa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Sunnaa may be contacted at ssunnaa@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Form Contracts are Great, but. . .

November 12, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Recently I was discussing the ConsensusDOCs with a colleague and friend and had a revelation. These forms are used often (though somewhat less than their AIA counterparts and less than they should be used). Quick disclaimer: I have been a part of a couple of drafting committees for ConsensusDOCs and am friends with Brian Perlberg, general counsel to the drafting effort. Some of the reason that these forms are so widely used is that they can be applied in a general way to almost any situation. Both sets of forms have documents for small and large jobs. Both have forms for Contractor/Owner and Contractor/Subcontractor. In short, a form document exists for about any scenario. I am writing now to let you know that while forms are great, they are just that. . . forms. Like with any set of forms, they need to be “tweaked” for your particular project. In my opinion they both have great clauses in them, and both have some flexibility built in (ConsensusDOCS more at the moment than the AIA forms). At the very least, construction professionals need to use this flexibility to conform the documents to their particular situation and do so within the documents themselves and not with addenda that “strike” or “modify” particular clauses. 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

---

California Supreme Court Clarifies Deadline to File Anti-SLAPP Motions in Light of Amended Pleadings

July 02, 2018 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
California’s “anti-SLAPP” (“SLAPP” is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute—codified at California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 et seq.—is the primary vehicle for defending against any action involving petitioning or free speech. The statute was designed to provide an early and fast summary judgment-like procedure to allow defendants and cross-defendants to file a motion to dismiss either an entire complaint, specific causes of action, or even just portions of a cause of action, and to require the plaintiff to respond before conducting discovery. By facilitating an early challenge to a plaintiff or cross-complainant’s claims, the anti-SLAPP statute allows the responding party to avoid the costs and delay that chill the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f), an anti-SLAPP motion must be filed “within 60 days of the service of the complaint . . . .” But what if the plaintiff files an ameded complaint? In Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637, the California Supreme Court held that the 60-day timeline runs from the date a complaint is filed with the cause(s) of action challenged in the anti-SLAPP motion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---

Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

August 05, 2024 — Construction Executive
The key risks that should always be taken into account when a contract is signed are risks associated with uncompensated delays and cost increases. Provisions relating to the scope of work deserve significant attention to help minimize these risks. Defining the scope of work is often put on the backburner while parties focus on negotiating the rest of the terms and conditions of the contract. And when these scopes are inserted, they are often not closely reviewed by attorneys who tend to defer to project personnel on scope. These situations can lead to costly disputes. Instead, make sure: (1) the correct plans and specifications have been referenced in the contract; (2) an attorney or his/her business counterpart is familiar with relevant specifications; (3) the exhibit containing the assumptions and clarifications is clearly written, has been coordinated with language in the body of the contract and can be clearly understood by attorneys and business people beyond the preconstruction personnel who drafted them; and (4) the contract addresses the order of precedence in the event of a conflict between or among contract provisions (including exhibits). With regard to specifications referenced above, an attorney review is advised because many specification sections, including submittal sections, change order sections, payment provisions and construction progress documentation sections, regularly vary from the negotiated sections of the actual contract. Contractors also unwittingly accept design risk through performance specifications, and the accompanying obligations and risks are underestimated by those tasked with the initial review of those documents. In sum, a clear scope is as important as clear terms and conditions. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

May 26, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. American Building Materials, Inc., No. 8:10-CV-313-T-24-AEP (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2011), insured drywall supplier ABM was sued by general contractor KB Homes seeking damages because property damage to houses built by KB Homes using defective Chinese drywall supplied by ABM. ABM’s CGL insurer Auto-Owners defended ABM under a reservation of rights and filed suit against ABM and KB Homes seeking a judicial declaration of no to duty to defend or indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit. On cross motions for summary, the federal district trial court directed entry of judgment in favor of ABM and KB Homes and against Auto-Owners, holding that Auto-Owners had a duty to defend and indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---