Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

May 30, 2018 — Erinn Contreras & Joy O. Siu - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
On May 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., No. S231549, slip. op. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2018). In it, the Court narrowly construed the “good faith” exception to the general rule that a direct contractor must make retention payments to its subcontractors within 10 days of receiving any retention payment. The exception provides that “[i]f a good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor, the direct contractor may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” Cal. Civ. Code section 8814(c). Reprinted courtesy of Erinn Contreras, Sheppard Mullin and Joy O. Siu, Sheppard Mullin Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

OSHA Finalizes PPE Fitting Requirement for Construction Workers

December 31, 2024 — Jonathan H. Schaefer - Construction Law Zone
On December 11, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it finalized a revision to the personal protective equipment (PPE) standard for the construction industry. The final rule adds specific language to the existing standard requiring employers to provide properly fitting PPE for construction industry workers. This change aligns the construction industry with the standards in place for the general industry. According to OSHA, many types of PPE must properly fit workers. Improperly sized PPE can ineffectively protect workers, creating new hazards for them, such as oversized gloves or protective clothing being caught in machinery and discouraging use because of discomfort or poor fit. OSHA stated that the longstanding issue with improperly fitting PPE particularly impacted women, as well as physically smaller or larger workers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan H. Schaefer, Robinson+Cole
Mr. Schaefer may be contacted at jschaefer@rc.com

Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

July 02, 2018 — Jason Feld & Alex Chazen - Kahana & Feld LLP
California law mandates that any person who conducts roof inspections for a fee can no longer effectuate the actual repairs to the same property. Effective January 1, 2018, Business & Professions Code Section 7197 (Unfair Business Practices) deems it to be an unfair business practice for a home inspector who charges a homeowner a monetary fee for inspecting the property, to perform or offer to perform additional repairs due to the inherent financial interest and conflict raised by identifying alleged defects necessitating repairs. The new law is a result of California AB 1357, which was signed into law on October 5, 2017. The goal of the new law is to disincentivize a roof inspector from creating a report for the sole purpose of obtaining a bid to perform those documented repairs. The roof contractor can perform repairs identified in their report only after a twelve month “cooling period” which provides the homeowner an opportunity to obtain multiple bids/estimates for repairs based upon the inspector’s report. The new law also discourages home inspectors from providing a list of contractors who provide monetary referral fees back to the home inspector upon receiving repair work from the homeowner based exclusively on the home inspection report. The California Business & Professions Code Section 7195(a)(1) defines a “home inspection” as a “non-invasive, physical examination, performed for a fee in connection with the transfer…of the real property…or essential components of the residential dwelling.” Home inspection includes “any consultation regarding the property that is represented to be a home inspection or any confusingly similar term.” Business & Professions Code section 7195(a)(2) further defines a “home inspection” as including energy efficiency and solar. A “home inspection report” is a written report prepared for a fee issued after an inspection. Business & Professions Code section 7195(c). It is noted that a home inspector does not have to be a licensed architect, professional engineer, or general contractor with a Class “B” license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but “it is the duty of a home inspector who is not licensed as a general contractor, structural pest control operator, or architect, or registered as a professional engineer to conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise. Business & Professions Code section 7196. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and Alex Chazen, Kahana & Feld LLP Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanalaw.com Mr. Chazen may be contacted at achazen@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Will Protecting Copyrights Get Easier for Architects?

November 28, 2022 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
Like any creative business, architects rely on their intellectual property. Their designs are at the center of their work. For example, as we discussed in a previous post, many architects nowadays focus on creating new ways for their building designs to be environmentally friendly and sustainable. However, nearly every form of intellectual property faces the risk of theft or infringement in the business world. Architects face unique challenges with their copyrights – as well as risks. Copyright Issues in the Architecture World One of the biggest issues, of course, is that there are many aspects of building designs that architects cannot protect by copyright. This is simply because various details are fundamental in the construction of every building. One person cannot own the rights to such a common design. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

February 03, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case. In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:

an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.

The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Philadelphia Voters to Consider Best Value Bid Procurment

May 10, 2017 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
My friend and colleague, Chris McCabe, recently published an opinion piece on Philly.com concerning the May 16 ballot question that asks Philadelphia voters to approve a change in the way Philadelphia awards public contracts. Currently, Philadelphia, like all municipalities in Pennsylvania, uses an objective lowest responsible bidder standard in the award of public contracts. Under this approach, public contracts must be awarded to a bidder that responds to all of the criteria of the request for bids and offers the lowest price. Under this traditional approach the award of public contracts is completely transparent. The May 16 ballot initiative seeks to change this. If approved, Philadelphia could award public contracts using a host of subjective factors. What those factors would be are unknown because the policies are not yet written. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

New York Restrictions on Flow Through Provision in Subcontracts

August 14, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
Most subcontracts include a flow through provision (also called flow down and incorporation clauses) stating that the subcontractor and contractor are bound by the same obligations as set forth in the prime contract between the contractor and owner. Many jurisdictions interpret such provisions narrowly, as illustrated in a recent case out of New York. In Amerisure Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Group, Inc., 2023 WL 3311879, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s interpretation of a flow through clause in a construction subcontract. The Amerisure case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for a personal injury to a subcontractor’s employee on a construction project. The owner of the project sought defense and indemnity from the general contractor (GC) and its insurance company, who in turn sought coverage for the owner as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy. The GC based its argument for coverage on the flow through provision in the subcontract. The prime contract required the GC to procure commercial liability insurance including the owner as an additional insured for claims caused by the GC’s negligent acts or omissions. The subcontract likewise required the subcontractor to procure commercial general liability insurance but required only that the GC be named as an additional insured. However, the subcontract also included a flow through clause, binding the subcontractor to the terms of the prime contract and assuming toward the GC all the obligations and responsibilities that the GC assumed toward the owner. However, the subcontract did not expressly require that the subcontractor name the owner as an additional insured, and in order for the owner to qualify as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s insurance policy, the subcontractor must have agreed in the subcontract to name the owner as an additional insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?

August 26, 2015 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
“‘We’re going to have to find another way to finance the upkeep of the roads,’ Gov. Jerry Brown said earlier this year in rolling out his 2015 budget. Governor Brown gave no specifics, but last fall he signed a law that set up a commission to study a ‘road usage charge’ with a call to ‘establish a pilot program by Jan. 1, 2017…'” – San Jose Mercury News, January 27, 2015 This Change, It’s a Coming (Maybe) Many states and the federal government are seriously considering converting from a “gallons consumed” tax levy to a “miles driven” program for determining gasoline tax. There are several compelling reasons for such a change. First, our roads are falling apart while revenue from current highway taxes fall woefully short of our current and projected needs. In the meantime, the number of miles driven by all-electric cars that pay no gas tax, is increasing rapidly; and by hybrids that pay substantially reduced tax; and worse for the taxing authorities, by increasingly efficient gas-powered cars. All of this means rapidly dropping gas tax revenues. Seeing this trend, local, state and the federal governments are making a major push to convert from a consumption based tax to a “miles driven” tax. This a good thing for those of us that believe increased investment in our transportation infrastructure is of high national concern. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES