Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

April 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder. Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

California Makes Big Changes to the Discovery Act

March 04, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Beginning January of 2024, California amended the Civil Discovery Act to mirror the Federal Rules and require that any party appearing in a civil action to provide initial disclosures to any other party demanding the same. In January of 2024, California amended the Civil Discovery Act, specifically C.C.P. section 2016.090, to affirmatively require that any party appearing in a civil action to provide initial disclosures to any other party demanding the same. In an effort to reflect the Federal Rule 26 disclosure requirements, as many other States have adopted, California will now also mandate (upon demand) that a party produce evidence without an arduous and possibly duplicative effort. In other words, this initial disclosure will require a party making initial disclosures of persons or records to additionally disclose persons or records that are relevant to the subject matter of the action and to disclose information and records regarding insurance policies or contracts that would make a person or insurance company liable to satisfy a judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance

July 10, 2023 — Marisa Miller, John Yacovelle & Kazim Naqvi - Sheppard Mullin
On June 10, 2023, a jury in Portland, Oregon found PacifiCorp and Pacific Power (collectively, “PacifiCorp”) liable for negligence, trespass, and nuisance based on a series of four wildfires that occurred during Labor Day weekend in 2020. PacifiCorp prevailed against the plaintiffs on the claim of inverse condemnation. With respect to the tort-based claims, the jury awarded approximately $72 million in compensatory damages to 17 plaintiffs. The jury later found PacifiCorp liable for $18 million in punitive damages, or one quarter of the compensatory damages that the jury awarded to the 17 plaintiffs. The jury’s liability findings apply to a broader class of owners, whose damages will need to be individually proven in a yet-to-be defined second phase of proceedings. Post-verdict motion practice and appeals may affect the jury’s findings. Reprinted courtesy of Marisa Miller, Sheppard Mullin, John Yacovelle, Sheppard Mullin and Kazim Naqvi, Sheppard Mullin Ms. Miller may be contacted at mmiller@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Yacovelle may be contacted at jyacovelle@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Naqvi may be contacted at knaqvi@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act Explained

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Colorado passed its Construction Action Defect Reform Act twelve years ago, but as Anne K. McMichael of Zupkus & Angell, PC, points out, “while portions of this act are reasonably straightforward, several of the sections are subject to ongoing debate as to how these concepts should be applied to achieve fair and unbiased results.” The process for a construction defect claim under the CDARA starts with filing a notice of defects, after which the construction professional is permitted to inspect the alleged defect. The construction professional can then offer to repair or settle. The law offers protections for construction professionals who follow through with the process. But, as Ms. McMichael notes, these are denied to construction professionals who do not make offers, fail to meet settlement agreements, or offers a settlement that is insufficient for repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

December 07, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Recently, the California Bar Association (“CBA”) published Formal Opinion No. 2020-203[1] concerning a lawyer’s ethical obligations with respect to unauthorized access to electronically stored client information. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the growing trend of storing and maintaining data and information online so that employees and clients can access the data from anywhere in the world at any time. Now, in today’s working world, the reality is nearly all information and data is stored and shared digitally online for ease of access, use, and dissemination. Unfortunately, a major draw-back of this switch to a cyber paradigm is serious exposure to data breaches as a result of hacking, inadvertence, or theft. Formal Opinion No. 2020-203 outlines how a lawyer is to handle access to client confidential information and anticipation of potential security issues. This article will briefly cover the key aspects addressed in Formal Opinion No. 2020-203. What is the duty owed by a lawyer to his or her client regarding the use of technology? At the outset, the CBA reminds lawyers of the ongoing duty of competence (Rule 1.1) and the duty to safeguard clients’ confidences and secrets (Rule 1.6; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068(e)) which impose the requirement that a lawyer must have a basic understanding of the risks posed when using a given technology and (if necessary) obtain help from appropriate experts to assess those risks and take reasonable steps to prevent data breaches. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Application of Set-Off When a Defendant Settles in Multiparty Construction Dispute

January 05, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
The defense of set-off is an important defense in construction disputes, particularly multiparty disputes. For more information on this defense, please check out this article as it explains the application of set-off in civil disputes in detail. The issue of set-off will come up in a multiparty dispute when a plaintiff settles with one or more of the defendants. The remaining defendant(s) wants the benefit of that settlement to set-off and reduce any judgment against it. An example of this scenario can be found in Escadote I Corp. v. Ocean Three Limited Partnership, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D23a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). In this case, an owner of a condominium unit sued the condominium association, the developer, and the general contractor for water intrusion and mold infestation. The claim against the condominium association was the only claim that entitled the owner to attorney’s fees pursuant to its lawsuit (thus, attorney’s fees were isolated to only that claim against the association). During trial, the owner settled with the association. In entering a settlement, the owner smartly allocated the settlement amount such that $500 was allocated to its principal damages and $374,500 was allocated to its attorney’s fees. The owner then obtained a jury verdict against the contractor and developer for approximately $2M, jointly and severally, and the contractor and developer wanted the entire $375,000 settlement amount with the association to be set-off from the $2M verdict. The trial court set-off the entire $375,000 from the jury verdict when entering judgment. The appellate court reversed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

January 11, 2021 — Joshua Lindsay, Crowell & Moring & Meagan Bachman, Crowell & Moring - ENR
We are 10 months into the global pandemic. Given the magnitude of additional costs and upended expectations and risk-allocation, we foresee a wave of disputes coming soon. Whether it is large or small depends heavily on how well project team members handle the COVID-19 project impacts now. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lindsay, Crowell & Moring (ENR) and Meagan Bachman, Crowell & Moring (ENR) Ms. Bachman may be contacted at mbachman@crowell.com Mr. Lindsay may be contacted at joshlindsay@crowell.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

March 22, 2018 — Bruce Cleeland and Frances Ma – Publications & Insights
In Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., 2018 No. B270985, the California Court of Appeal examined and refined the Privette doctrine. Mr. Delgadillo worked as a supervisor/window cleaner for a company named Chamberlin Building Services (CBS). Television Center, Inc. (TCI) purchased an existing building and thereafter contracted with CM Cleaning Solutions, Inc. (CMC) to provide cleaning and janitorial services. CMC, on behalf of TCI, solicited a proposal from CBS to wash the building’s windows. CBS and its employees made all decisions about how the window washing would be accomplished. The window washing equipment used on the job was owned, inspected and maintained by CBS. In violation of CBS’ policy, Mr. Delgadillo, attached a safety line to a single connector which was not an acceptable anchor point. The bracket failed and Mr. Delgadillo fell 50 feet to his death. Survivors of Mr. Delgadillo filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that Mr. Delgadillo was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by several statutes. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES