Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Construction Defects and Warranties in Maryland

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Nicholas D. Cowie, a partner with Cowie & Mott, P.A., has started a blog focusing on construction defect claims in Maryland condominium complexes. In his first post, he writes about the statutory remedies in Maryland law for condominium owners. He notes that “four separate statutory warranties apply to the sale of condominiums.” He further discusses the varying duration of these warranties and when they come into effect, saying that “associations and unit owners are often incorrectly informed that their construction defect-related problems (such as leaks around windows) are ‘out of warranty’ because the problems did not occur during the warranty period.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Stormy Skies Ahead? Important News Regarding a Hard Construction Insurance Market

August 13, 2019 — Jason M. Adams - Gibbs Giden
Word out of the construction insurance brokerage community is that the construction insurance industry has entered a hard market, seemingly overnight. Property (i.e. builder’s risk), liability and wrap-up markets are all reacting unfavorably, resulting in higher premiums and decreased availability of coverage options. The prospect of a hard market has been looming for some time given massive weather driven property losses and historically low rates (among other factors). It appears the time is upon us. Key takeaways for construction professionals are:

Expect insurance premiums to go up, potentially significantly, at renewal time and/or when seeking a new project specific program (e.g., an OCIP, CCIP, etc.).
Expect that the available coverage will get worse. Carriers may be unable to offer once standard coverage enhancements and/or may add new exclusions.
If quotes have been offered consider locking them in now, before the underwriters are forced to increase the rates/restrict coverage, or pull the quotes entirely.
With respect to wrap-ups and other project specific programs, consider requesting extensions now if the project is expected to go beyond the current policy term.
As always, the risk management team (lawyer, broker, risk manager) should work together to carefully review contracts and coverage. This will become even more important if the carriers start to introduce new exclusions as a result of the hard market.

Hard markets come and go. The tough times are when true construction insurance professionals separate themselves from the pack and become the key to weathering the storm. Jason M. Adams, Esq. is Senior Counsel at Gibbs Giden representing construction professionals (owners/developers, contractors, architects, etc.) in the areas of Construction Law, Insurance Law and Risk Management, Common Interest Community Law (HOA) and Business/Civil Litigation. Adams is also a licensed property and casualty insurance broker and certified Construction Risk & Insurance Specialist (CRIS). Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. Mr. Adams can be reached at jadams@gibbsgiden.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

General Contractor Gets Fired [Upon] for Subcontractor’s Failure to Hire Apprentices

September 23, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As most public works contractors know, Labor Code section 1777.5 requires the hiring of apprentices on public works projects and, under Labor Code section 1777.7, violations are subject to civil penalties of up $100/day and up to $300/day days for repeated violations within a three-year period. In Lusardi Construction Co. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 102 Cal.App.5th (2024), a prime contractor learned the hard way that not only could it be penalized for its failure to hire apprentices but that it could also be liable for its subcontractor’s failure to hire apprentices. Forewarned is to be forearmed. The Lusardi Construction Case In 2014, general contractor Lusardi Construction Company hired subcontractor Pro Works Contracting to perform iron reinforcing work on a public works project owned by the San Marcos Unified School District. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

U.S. Home Prices Climbed 0.1% in July as Gains Slowed

September 24, 2014 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
U.S. home prices rose less than economists estimated in July as investors pull back from the property market. Prices climbed 0.1 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis from June, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said today in a report from Washington. The average economist estimate was for a 0.5 percent increase, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Investors who helped drive up prices are retreating as fewer foreclosures and other discounted homes become available. All-cash purchases in August fell to about 23 percent of the market from the usual 33 percent, the National Association of Realtors reported yesterday. Investors accounted for 12 percent, the least since late 2009. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

"My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

February 23, 2016 — David A. Harris & Jesse M. Sullivan – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Retention clauses are almost always included in California construction contracts and permit an Owner to withhold a portion of what is owed to the General Contractor as security to ensure the proper completion of the work. General Contractors pass the withholding of retention down to the subcontractors. Thus, if the subcontractor fails to complete its work, or fails to correct deficiencies, the Owner/General Contractor can use the retention to pay the costs of completing or correcting the subcontractor’s work. The contractor must release any retention it receives from the owner within ten days unless a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and the subcontractor.” (Civil Code section 8814.) Where there is a good faith dispute, the 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.” (Civil Code section 8814(c).) If the contractor wrongfully withholds retention, it must not only pay the retention but must also pay the subcontractor “a penalty of 2 percent per month on the amount wrongfully withheld.” The contractor must also pay the subcontractor’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in collecting the retention. (Civil Code section 8818.) Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners

August 10, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Earlier, we wrote about an appellate court split concerning the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895 et seq.) which applies to construction defects in newly constructed residential properties including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003. The California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, held that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy when pursing claims for construction defects involving “actual” property damage (e.g., a defectively constructed roof causing actual physical damage due to water intrusion as opposed to a defectively constructed roof that while constructed improperly does not cause actual physical damage). However, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court, held that the Right to Repair Act does in fact provide the exclusive remedy when pursuing claims for construction defects whether they involve “actual” property damage or merely “economic” damages. For homeowners, they would prefer the option of pursuing remedies under either or both the Right to Repair Act (which includes detailed pre-litigation procedures and statutory construction standards) or under common law claims such as negligence (which do not include pre-litigation procedures and have more flexible standards of care). The California Court of Appeals for the Third District has now thrown its hat into the ring . . . on the side of McMillan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

June 12, 2014 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. and Kacey R. Riccomini, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
The Second District Court of Appeal’s recent decision, Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216, immediately affects builders and contractors (collectively “builders”) who are often named as additional insureds (AIs) to contractors’ general liability policies. The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder. The salient aspects of the facts, the Appellate Court’s reasoning, and practical considerations are discussed below. Transport Insurance Company (Transport) issued a commercial excess and umbrella liability policy (Policy) to Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), naming R.R. Street & Co., Inc. (Street) as an AI for its distribution of a solvent. The Policy provided that Transport would indemnify and defend the insured for loss caused by property damage if (1) it was not covered by “underlying insurance” but was within the terms of coverage of the Policy, or (2) if the limits of liability of the “underlying insurance” were exhausted during the Policy period due to property damage. The Policy included a Schedule of Underlying Insurance (Schedule) that listed policies issued to Vulcan. Thereafter, Vulcan and Street were named as defendants in several environmental contamination actions (Underlying Actions). Transport brought a declaratory relief action against Vulcan regarding Transport’s duty to defend. (Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (Legacy Vulcan) (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677). The trial court found the term “underlying insurance” ambiguous as it was not expressly defined to include only the policies on the Schedule and could be interpreted to include all primary policies in effect. Vulcan challenged the trial court’s decision by petition for writ of mandate, contending “underlying insurance” only included policies listed on the Schedule. The Court of Appeal found “underlying insurance” ambiguous because it was an expressly qualified term under other Policy provisions but not in the umbrella coverage provision and, thus, it was a generic term that was not limited to policies listed in the Schedule or inclusive of all primary insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto and Kacey R. Riccomini Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com; Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com, and Ms. Riccomini may be contacted at kriccomini@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

February 23, 2016 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
January 21, 2016 - The Best Lawyers in America® 2016, is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys earning this honor for 2016 include the following: William G. Baumgaertner - Personal Injury Litigation Denis J. Moriarty - Insurance Law Since its inception in 1983, Best Lawyers has become regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Because Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 39,000 leading attorneys cast almost 3.1 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas, and because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed, inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES