Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Executing Documents with Powers of Attorney and Confessions of Judgment in PA Just Got Easier

October 27, 2016 — Thomas C. Rogers, Nancy Sabol Frantz and Susan Fetterman – White and Williams LLP
Certain tedious requirements in Pennsylvania for the execution of a document used in a commercial transaction which contains a power of attorney have been eliminated. Act 103 of 2016, which was signed by Governor Wolf on October 4, 2016, exempts certain powers of attorney from the requirement that it be acknowledged by a notary public as well as other formalities. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Thomas C. Rogers, Nancy Sabol Frantz and Susan Fetterman Mr. Rogers may be contacted at rogerst@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Fetterman may be contacted at fettermans@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Tort, By Any Other Name, is Just a Tort: Massachusetts Court Bars Contract Claims That Sound in Negligence

March 20, 2023 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In University of Massachusetts Building Authority v. Adams Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2023 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 28, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1107, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts (Appeals Court) considered whether the lower court properly held that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were time-barred by the statute of repose because they sounded in tort. The Appeals Court held that while the six-year statute of repose only applies to tort claims, they can also bar claims for breach of contract and indemnification if they sound in tort. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were just negligence claims disguised as non-tort claims. In 2013 and 2014, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) retained various contractors to renovate the dining hall for one of its campus buildings, which included the installation of new ductwork for the kitchen’s exhaust system. The dining hall opened for service in September 2014. In the Spring of 2018, it was discovered that the ductwork for the kitchen had collapsed. Further investigation revealed other deficiencies with the exhaust system. On December 1, 2020, UMass filed a lawsuit against various contractors, asserting negligence, breach of contract, and indemnification. The breach of contract claims alleged breach of express warranties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Construction Problem Halts Wind Power Park

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Engineers have yet to determine why a blade on a wind turbine broke at a wind power plant in Michigan, but as part of their investigation they are halting work on the final 10 turbines. The already completed 60 turbines have been taken out of operation. As a result, the Echo Wind Park is no longer generating power. Scott Simons, a spokesperson for the project, said “we’re not going to put anyone or anything at risk until we get to the bottom of this.” However, Dennis Buda, the project manager, attributed the broken blade to a manufacturing defect. Construction was planned to end in November. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fla. Researchers Probe 'Mother of All Sinkholes'

August 24, 2017 — Thomas F. Armistead - Engineering News-Record
It will take months to complete remediation of the largest sinkhole in Pasco County, Fla.’s recent history, county officials say. Seven houses have been lost or condemned since the sinkhole was reported at 7:21 a.m. on July 14. That day, two houses collapsed into the hole, which initially measured 225 ft long and 50 ft deep. As the cavity’s dimensions grew to between 260 ft and 180 ft, the county red-tagged five additional houses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Thomas F. Armistead, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

January 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. 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

Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in a construction defect case, Lee v. Gorham. Minnesota law requires that contractors warranty that the home will be free of major construction defects during the first ten years, but claims must “be brought within two years of the discovery of the breach.” The Lees received a home inspection report in 2009 that identified a variety of defects, including “several possible structural defects.” The court noted that the report stated, “Contact your builder in writing of the findings, and discuss your options with an attorney.” The Lees contacted the contractor, Gorham Builders. After initial silence, Gorham told the Lees that problems would “have to be ‘turned over to [the] insurance company.’” Rodney noted in his testimony that he had two choices, to either sue Gorham or hire an outside contractor. Mr. Lee had concluded that the legal costs were likely to be equal to the cost of the contractor. In June, 2011, the Lees changed their mind about bringing a suit. Gorham sought and received a summary judgment dismissing the case on the grounds that too much time had passed since the Lees learned of the construction defect. The Lees appealed. The appeals court upheld the summary judgment. The Lees claimed that the 2009 home inspection did not alert them of a “major construction defect,” but the court concluded that the language of the report fit within the Minnesota statutory definition of a “major construction defect.” Nor was the appeals court convinced that at any time did Gorham provide “assurances that it would cure the defects to the home.” Within the same month as the May 2009 inspection, Gorham had made it clear that any problems were an issue for the insurance company. Thus, the appeals court concluded that the Lee’s equitable-estoppel argument was without merit. The Lees also brought to appeal the new argument that they did not realize they were dealing with “major construction defects” until they received a subsequent home inspection in 2011. The court noted that the second report does not detail “new defects or structural issues not identified in the 2009 inspection report.” In addition to being “without merit,” the court noted that this claim was not made in the district court and so the appeals court “need not consider this issue on appeal.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

January 21, 2019 — David R. Cook, Jr. - Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLP
During a storm, a tree landed on a homeowners house causing damage to the home’s foundation. Homeowners filed a claim on their homeowners insurance policy to recover the resulting damages. After homeowners and insurance company could not come to an agreement on value of the loss, homeowners filed a lawsuit. Homeowners presented the testimony of a contractor as an expert witness regarding the damage and the resulting loss of value. Contractor testified that the home value was reduced in half as a direct result of the damage to the home’s foundation. Insurance company sought to exclude the contractor’s testimony, arguing he was not qualified as an expert and did not apply appropriate methodology to reach his opinions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Jr., Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

December 21, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A general contractor’s subcontract with its subcontractor should include a provision that entitles it to flow down liquidated damages assessed by the owner stemming from delays caused by the subcontractor. Such a provision does not mean the general contractor does not have to prove delays caused by the subcontractor or can arbitrarily allocate the amount or days it claims the subcontractor is liable. The general contractor still will need to reasonably establish the delays the subcontractor caused the critical path of the schedule, i.e., delayed the job. In addition to the right to flow down liquidated damages, the subcontract should also entitle the general contractor to recover its actual extended general conditions caused by the subcontractor’s delays (regardless of whether the owner assesses liquidated damages). The objective is that if the subcontractor delays the job, the subcontractor is liable for liquidated damages the general contractor is liable to the owner for in addition to the general contractor’s own delay damages. This is an important subcontractual provision so that the risk of delay caused by subcontractors is clearly flowed down to them in the subcontract. In a 1987 case, Hall Construction Co., Inc. v. Beynon, 507 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the subcontract at-issue contained language that stated, “The parties hereto agree that a supplier who delays performance beyond the time agreed upon in this Purchase Order shall have caused [general contractor] liquidated damages in the amount required of [general contractor] by their contract per day for each day such delay continues which sum the supplier hereby agrees to pay.” 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES