Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Construction Contract’s Scope of Work Should Be Written With Clarity

March 06, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The scope of work section in your construction contract should never be overlooked. In numerous instances, it is overlooked which leads to a dispute as to the precise nature of the scope of work. This dispute could be the result of an ambiguity in the scope of work section. Or it could be the result of an omission. Or it could be the result of a lack of clarification. Or it could be the result of not properly reviewing and vetting the scope of work section. This is a section—whether included in the body of your contract or attached as an exhibit—you absolutely, positively want clarity. Otherwise, you are potentially setting yourself up for a future dispute that could include (i) an additional work / change order dispute, (ii) an incomplete work dispute, or (iii) a failure to properly perform your work dispute. These are all disputes you want to avoid, and many times can avoid, by going through and negotiating the scope of work section to bring clarity to this section. Remember, clarity is a positive. Ambiguity or uncertainty is a negative. An example of such an avoidable scope of work dispute can be found in All Year Cooling and Heating, Inc. v. Burkett Properties, Inc., 2023 WL 2000991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Here, an air conditioning contractor was hired to install six new split air conditioning systems. The scope of work provided that there were currently “two split systems that are currently existing, working perfectly and are not to be replaced as part of this contract.” The property manager claimed the air conditioning contractor was required to bring these two existing split air conditioning systems up to code as the contract provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the contractor “will certify and shall ensure that all split systems in the building, upon completion of all the work, will be fully compliant with all codes and regulations and shall be responsible for any costs relates to the implementation and/or remediation of same.” 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

Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

December 02, 2019 — K. Alexandra Byrd - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to. The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee. The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Byrd may be contacted by kab@sdvlaw.com

Housing Agency Claims It Is Not a Party in Construction Defect Case

February 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) is seeking to be removed from a construction defect suit filed by Aspen homeowners. APCHA claims that it should not be a party to the suit, since it had nothing to do with the development of the Burlingame Ranch community. Responsibility should instead, according to the agency, rest with the City of Aspen. APCHA’s role was to sell the homes to individuals whom it had verified were eligible to purchase affordable housing. Tom McCabe, the director of APCHA said that “APCHA has no part in the building of housing anymore, and we haven’t for a long time.” Chris Rhody, who represents the Burlingame homeowners, feels that APCHA should be involved. The homeowners are alleging that construction defects, including cracked exterior siding, are the result of faulty materials and improper installation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New California Construction Law for 2019

January 02, 2019 — Daniel F. McLennon - Smith Currie
The California Legislature introduced over 2637 bills in the second half of the 2017-2018 session. This article summarizes some of the more important bills affecting contractors in their roles as contractors, effective January 1, 2019, unless otherwise noted. Not addressed here are many other bills that will affect contractors in their roles as businesses, taxpayers, and employers. Each of the summaries is brief, focusing on what is most important to contractors. Because not all aspects of these bills are discussed, each summary’s title is a live link to the full text of the referenced bills for those wanting to explore the details of the new laws. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. McLennon, Smith Currie
Mr. McLennon may be contacted at dfmclennon@smithcurrie.com

I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

June 08, 2020 — Greggory Jacobs - Florida Construction Law News Blog
The Supreme Court of Florida issued its opinion in Florida Highway Patrol v. Jackson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 108 (Fla. Jan 23, 2020), which answered the following certified question of great public importance: Does rule 9.130 [(A)(3)(C)(XI)] permit an appeal of a non-final order denying immunity if the record shows that the defendant is entitled to immunity as a matter of law but the trial court did not explicitly preclude it as a defense? The Court’s answer to this question was “no.” But this opinion stands for much more than just a negative answer to a certified question. Indeed, this opinion has significant implications upon procedural and substantive areas of construction law, which may affect agents of the state of Florida, including Construction Engineering and Inspection professionals and consultants (“CEI”). Procedurally, the Court recognizes that Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 insufficiently protects the public and governmental interests as “it leaves too great a risk that erroneous denials of operational sovereign immunity will go unreviewed until it is too late.” Id. at * 19. By extension of this risk, the Jackson Court announced that “courts should determine entitlement to sovereign immunity as early as the record permits.” Id. at * 18. In fact, on that basis, courts can address a motion for summary judgment asserting entitlement to sovereign immunity even if there are outstanding disputes as to, say, the existence of a duty of care. Id. at 17-18. Accordingly, and in an effort to remedy the risk of erroneous denials going unreviewed until it is too late, the Court amended Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 to expand appellate review of nonfinal orders denying sovereign immunity. Jackson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 108 at * 19; In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, No. SC19-1734 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020). The new form of Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cements the policy mentioned above because it allows an appeal of a nonfinal order denying a motion for summary judgment due to entitlement to sovereign immunity. Meanwhile, under the old rule, the order was only appealable if the trial court order determined – as a matter of law – that a party was not entitled to sovereign immunity. As such, the new rule focuses on what was argued in the motion as opposed to what was written in the order. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Greggory Jacobs, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at greggory.jacobs@csklegal.com

New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

May 29, 2023 — Brett M. Hill & Ryanne S. Mathisen - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
This month, Governor Jay Inslee signed into law a new statute that caps retainage on private construction projects to five percent (5%), provides a mechanism for subcontractors to get paid their retainage prior to project completion, and allows for contractors and subcontractors to post a retainage bond and get paid their retainage early. For those interested in reading the full text of this new law, the statute can be found here. The new statute goes into effect on July 23, 2023. Under the statute, when a contractor or subcontractor considers their work under a contract subject to retainage complete, they may notify the party they contracted to perform the work for. Within 15 days of receiving the notice of completion of work, the party receiving the notice must respond with either (1) notice of acceptance of work or (2) notice of uncompleted items to the contractor or subcontractor. If the party receiving notice does not provide notice of uncompleted items within 15 days or fails to respond to the notice of completion entirely, the unpaid retainage will begin to accrue interest at a rate of one percent (1%) per month, 30 days after the initial 15-day period. However, this interest will not accrue against a contractor who has not been paid the retainage by an upper-tier contractor or owner until payment has been received, so long as that contractor has submitted its subcontractor’s notice of completion to the upper-tier contractor or owner within 30 days of receipt. Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryanne S. Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Balancing Risk and Reward: The Complexities of Stadium Construction Projects

April 15, 2024 — Gregory A. Eichorn - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
From grand designs to opening day, stadium construction projects present a captivating blend of high-profile opportunities and significant challenges and risks. Navigating this complex landscape is not easy, but when managed properly, the potential rewards, both in terms of reputation and finances, can make it a gamble worth taking. While each stadium project is different, some of the more common risks include:

Securing adequate labor, materials and equipment based on the size of the project;
Logistical concerns regarding the concurrent performance of multiple trade scopes on a single site;
Protection of work in place from weather due to the large footprint of the stadium project;
Cash flow issues caused by protracted change order processing, conflicting and/or onerous payment requirements from project financing entities, and reimbursement of considerable monthly general condition costs; and
Meeting the schedule requirements for the project.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory A. Eichorn, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Eichorn may be contacted at geichorn@pecklaw.com

New Opportunities for “Small” Construction Contractors as SBA Adjusts Its Size Standards Again Due to Unprecedented Inflation

September 11, 2023 — Hanna Lee Blake - ConsensusDocs
Thanks to the SBA’s November 17, 2022 adjustments to the size standards and monetary thresholds, a number of construction contractors will be able to retain their “small” status, and more contractors may benefit from federal assistance, programs, and contracts earmarked for “small” concerns. In the SBA’s view, small businesses should not lose their “small” status due solely to price level increases rather than from increases in business activity. It is anticipated that federal agencies may choose to set aside more construction contracts for competition among small businesses given the greater number of businesses that may be deemed “small” as a result of the SBA’s recent rule. In light of this, small construction contractors should consider whether it is prudent to register or update their existing profiles in the System for Award Management (SAM) to participate in federal contracting. The SBA’s Statutory Mandate The Small Business Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-163, as amended) authorized the SBA and justified the agency’s existence on the grounds that small businesses are essential to the maintenance of the free enterprise system. The congressional intent was to assist small businesses as a means to deter monopoly and oligarchy formation within all industries and the market failures caused by the elimination or reduction of competition in the marketplace. Congress delegated to the SBA the responsibility to establish size standards to ensure that only small businesses were provided SBA assistance. Since that time, the SBA has analyzed various economic factors, such as each industry’s overall competitiveness and the competitiveness of firms within each industry, to set its size standards. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hanna Lee Blake, Watt Tieder
Ms. Blake may be contacted at hblake@watttieder.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES