SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

A contractor testified in the trial of former Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora. According to Fox 8 in Cleveland, Ohio, Sean Newman, the president of Letter Perfect testified that his company was a subcontractor on the reconstruction of the locker rooms at the Cleveland Browns Stadium. Newman said his company was paid only $400,000 of their $650,000 bid. When Letter Perfect sued the contractor, D.A.S. Construction, Dimora called the judge to influence her to rule in favor of D.A.S.



The judge in the earlier case, Bridgett McCafferty, has been found guilty of lying to the FBI during their investigation and is serving a 14-month prison sentence.

Read the full story…

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

---

Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects

May 13, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that the supplier of cement for the construction of pools had coverage for alleged construction defects in the finished pools. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co. v. Paramount Concrete, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43889 (D. Conn. March 31, 2014). R.I. Pools sued Paramount, a manufacturer and supplier of shotcrete, after cracking appeared in nineteen pools built by R.I. Pools using Paramount's shotcrete. The jury awarded R.I. Pools compensatory damages of $2,760,000. Paramount's insurer, Harleysville, defended under a reservation of rights. After the verdict, Harleysville filed for a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage under the CGL policy. Paramount filed for partial summary judgment. Harleysville first argued there was no occurrence. The policy's definition of occurrence included the phrase, "continuous exposure." This broadened the term "occurrence" beyond the word accident to include a situation where damage occurred over a period of time, rather than suddenly or instantaneously. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act

August 29, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In federal contracting, contractors are sometimes torn about submitting a request for equitable adjustment (known as an “REA” under 48 C.F.R. 252.243-7002) or submitting a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. s. 7103), the latter requiring a final decision by the contracting officer and starts the clock with respect to interest and preserving rights. It is also sometimes not easy for the contracting officer receiving an REA to determine whether the REA is actually a claim under the Contract Disputes Act requiring more immediate action. This recent take by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hits the nail on the head:

We recognize that contracting officers will sometimes face the difficult challenge of determining whether a request for equitable adjustment is also a claim. Contractors must choose between submitting a claim—which starts the interest clock but requires the contracting officer to issue a final decision within 60 days—and submitting a mere request for equitable adjustment—which does not start the interest clock but gives the contractor more time to negotiate a settlement and possibly avoid hefty legal fees. The overlap between these two types of documents might create room for gamesmanship. For example, a contractor could submit a document that is a claim—starting the interest clock—but appears to be a mere request for equitable adjustment—causing the contracting officer to not issue a final decision within the 60-day deadline and allowing interest to accrue for months or years. But the government has tools to address this challenge: The contracting officer can communicate to the contractor that she is going to treat the document as a claim and issue a final decision within 60 days. Or the government can explicitly require the contractor to propose settlement terms and attempt to settle disputes before submitting a claim to the contracting officer for a final decision.

Zafer Construction Company v. U.S., 2022 WL 2793596, *5 (Fed.Cir. 2022).

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

---

Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

July 25, 2022 — Sarah McBride - Bloomberg
While Elon Musk is publicly making a big deal about moving to Texas and cozying up to the governor, behind the scenes his tunnel-building venture, Boring Co., is wrangling with local authorities in the state over a host of seemingly mundane permitting issues. Since Boring bought land last May to create a research and development center in Bastrop, Texas, a rural area outside Austin, the company has put workers up on mobile homes at the site without authorized sewage facilities, failed to get air and stormwater permits and built a driveway without first getting official approval, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News through a public records request. The company’s dealings with Bastrop are yet another illustration of how Musk’s businesses often push the boundaries of or simply ignore regulations that bind other companies. In recent years his Tesla Inc. restarted production at its Fremont plant in defiance of pandemic rules to stay closed, Boring tried to build a tunnel in Los Angeles without going through an environmental review process and the US Securities and Exchange Commission is examining the disclosure of Musk’s stake in Twitter Inc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride, Bloomberg

---

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the case Phillips v. Parmelee, the Wisconsin Supreme court ruled “that an asbestos exclusion in a liability policy barred a duty to defend and indemnify a building seller for claims that the seller failed to disclose that the building contained asbestos,” according to an article in Mondaq by Ruth S. Kochenderfer and Deanna P. Cook, both from Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The policyholder received a building report stating that the “heating ducts likely contained asbestos,” however, the buyers alleged that the policyholder never provided them the report. After the buyers purchased the property, contractors “cut through the heating ducts, unknowingly dispersing asbestos throughout the building.” According to Kochenderfer and Cook’s article, “The insurer intervened in the buyers' suit and sought summary judgment against the policyholder and buyers, arguing that an asbestos exclusion precluded coverage for the buyers' suit against the policyholder.” The buyers took the case to the Wisconsin Supreme court and “attacked the asbestos exclusion,” but the court rejected every argument. Kochenderfer and Cook stated that the “decision is significant because three courts, including Wisconsin's highest court, squarely rejected attempts to narrow a broad, clearly-worded asbestos exclusion. Further, it confirms that such an asbestos exclusion will apply to all causes of action, including an alleged failure to disclose the presence of asbestos.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

August 17, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Coverage was denied under the policy’s condominium exclusion in California Traditions, Inc. v. Claremont Liability Ins. Co.,2011 Cal. App.LEXIS912 (Cal. Ct. App., ordered published July 11, 2011).



California Traditions was the developer and general contractor for a housing development. California Traditions subcontracted with Ja-Con to perform the rough framing work for 30 residential units. The project had 146 separate residences that were freestanding with no shared walls, roof, halls, or plumbing or electrical lines. To allow a higher density development, the project was developed, marketed and sold as condominiums.



The purchaser of one of the units filed a complaint against California Traditions alleging property damage from the defective construction. California Traditions cross-complained against Ja-Con.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

New York State Legislature Reintroduces Bills to Extend Mortgage Recording Tax to Mezzanine Debt and Preferred Equity

March 15, 2021 — Steven E. Coury & Marissa Levy - White and Williams
Companion bills in the New York State Legislature, Assembly Bill No. A3139 and Senate Bill No. S3074, if enacted, would subject mezzanine loans and preferred equity investments to the same recording and taxation requirements placed on mortgages. The bills were reintroduced last month after similar bills (S7231/A9041) were introduced in the 2019-2020 legislative session. The prior bills died in committee when last year’s legislative session adjourned. As discussed in our prior alert, the proposed bills would require: (1) a financing statement evidencing any mezzanine debt and/or preferred equity investments related to real property to be filed in the county in which the real property is located and (2) a recording tax, at the same rate as the applicable mortgage recording tax rate (2.80% for commercial mortgages over $500,000 in New York City), to be imposed on the amount of the debt and/or investment at the time the financing statement is filed. The bills contain a limited carve-out for owner-occupied residential cooperatives. Reprinted courtesy of Steven E. Coury, White and Williams and Marissa Levy, White and Williams Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Levy may be contacted at levmp@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

March 14, 2022 — Nicole Stone, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
On February 4, 2022, President Biden issued Executive Order (“EO”) 14063[1]. The EO requires that a Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) be in place for any federal “large-scale construction projects” estimated at $35 million or more. To compete for or perform projects subject to the PLA requirement contractors must agree to be subject to the applicable PLA. For federal projects under $35 million or projects receiving federal financial assistance are not required by the EO to have PLA, but federal agencies will have discretion to require PLAs. The EO will not go into effect until after implementing regulations are finalized, probably after the beginning of June 2022. Requiring PLAs on federal construction projects is a substantial shift from even the Obama Administration’s policy in favor of PLAs. Biden’s PLA EO will have an impact on federal contractors and likely industry repercussions beyond federal procurement. Only time and experience will tell whether those impacts will all be positive as the Biden Administration insists or will drive up construction costs and give unions more leverage than they have in the market as the critics insist. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicole Stone, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Stone may be contacted at nstone@joneswalker.com

---