Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

June 06, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It all started with a tree. A eucalyptus tree to be exact. What followed is one of the more important cases to be decided under Business and Professions Code section 7031 in recent years. Yes, that Section 7031. The statute variously described by the state’s courts as “harsh[ ],” draconian” and “unjust,” but, importantly, nevertheless valid. Under Section 7031, an unlicensed contractor is barred from seeking compensation for work requiring a contractor’s license. This has been called the “shield.” However, in addition to the “shield,” project owners can also employ Section 7031’s “sword,” and seek disgorgement of all monies paid to an unlicensed contractor. Section 7031’s “shield” and “sword” applies even if the project owner knew that the contractor was unlicensed. They also apply even if the unlicensed contractor’s work was flawless. And they also apply even if a contractor was unlicensed during a portion of its work. This is because, as courts have stated, Section 7031 is a consumer protection statute intended to protect the public from unlicensed contractors and applies irrespective of the equities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

October 01, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand. Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Persimmon Offers to Fix Risky Homes as Cladding Crisis Grows

February 22, 2021 — Olivia Konotey-Ahulu - Bloomberg
Persimmon Plc, the U.K.’s biggest homebuilder, has offered to pay for work on potentially unsafe buildings in the wake of the cladding scandal that arose from London’s Grenfell Tower fire. The firm has made a provision of 75 million pounds ($104 million) in its 2020 results for any necessary repair work on 26 buildings it developed that may be affected by the issue, it said in a statement Wednesday. It no longer owns the properties and said it would provide support where owners failed to accept their legal responsibilities. “The concern around now banned cladding is affecting many thousands of homeowners who live in high-rise buildings right across the country,” Chairman Roger Devlin said in the statement. “We believe we have a clear duty to act to address this issue.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Konotey-Ahulu, Bloomberg

Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Although the year has been better for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, with a 9% increase since last year, this September saw 25% less construction spending than last September. Non-residential construction dropped even further, losing 36%. Although September was a bad month, the year-to-date value of construction contracts is about $3.3 billion, exceeding last year’s $3.0 billion for the region. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Senior Trial Counsel Timothy McNamara Wins Affirmation of Summary Judgment Denial

August 28, 2023 — Timothy G. McNamara - Traub Lieberman
In this appeal brought before the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, the court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s client, a housing complex owner, affirming the denial of co-defendant landscaping company’s summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the cross-claims asserted by the complex owner against the co-defendant. In the underlying case, the plaintiff was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell on ice on the exterior stairs of the housing complex where she lived. The complex owner had contracted with the co-defendant to provide snow removal services for the complex. The plaintiff commenced action against both the complex owner and the landscaping company to recover damages for personal injuries. The complex owner asserted cross-claims against the landscaping company for contribution, common-law indemnification, and contractual indemnification. The landscaping company sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it, but the branch of the motion seeking dismissal of the cross-claims was denied. In the appeal brought before the Appellate Division, the court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s client, the complex owner, affirming the denial of summary judgment for the cross-claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy G. McNamara, Traub Lieberman
Mr. McNamara may be contacted at tmcnamara@tlsslaw.com

New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

April 25, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

Contractual fairness ? it is part of my mantra. If you read the blog, you probably know that I preach brevity, balance and clarity in contracting. The State of Washington did well to finally eliminate something that has angered me for quite some time ? unfair indemnification.

One of my favorite construction contract revisions is mutual indemnification. Many “up the chain” contractors and owners are going to stick you with a unilateral indemnification clause that protects them for just about everything, including their own fumbling of a project. Adding mutual indemnification provides some balance, and keeps parties reliant upon each other for success on the job site.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

August 10, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Colorado Supreme Court determined that the insurer defending under a reservation of rights could not intervene in the underlying case after the insured assigned its rights to any bad faith claim against the insurer. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2021 Colo. LEXIS 365 (Colo. May 24, 2021). Bolt Factory initiated a construction defects lawsuit against various contractors. Several defendants filed third-party complaints against subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Company. Auto-Owners agreed to defend its insured, Sierra Glass, under a reservation of rights. Auto-Owners declined to settle with Bolt Factory for $1.9 million, within policy limits. Sierra Glass then retains independent counsel and entered into a settlement with Bolt Factory. The settlement allowed Sierra Glass to assign its bad faith claims to Bolt Factory in exchange for the right to pursue the insurer for payment of the excess judgment rather than Sierra Glass. Instead of entering into a stipulated judgment, Bolt Factory and Sierra Glass proceeded to an abbreviated trial. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

May 18, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision for collapse coverage. Commercial Constr. Endeavors, Inc. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., 2019 Vt. LEXIS 173 (Vt. Sup. Ct. Dec. 13,2019). Commercial Construction Endeavors, Inc. (CCE) built a livestock barn. By late December 2014, the barn was partially complete, with the foundation laid, wood framing erected, and roof trusses installed. In late December, strong winds caused the structure to collapse. CCE started clearing debris and rebuilding the barn, incurring additional labor and material costs. CCE reported the collapse to Ohio Security. The policy covered loss to "Covered Property." Ohio Security determined that the loss was covered for "Off-Premises Property Damage Including Care, Custody or Control." This endorsement provided coverage for damage to real property upon which CCE was performing operations where the damage resulted from those operations. Ohio Security paid CCE $24,750, the full amount available under the endorsement, less a $250 deductible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES