Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

August 17, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Earlier, we wrote about Davis v. Fresno United School District (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261, a Fifth District California Court of Appeals decision that sent shock waves through the school construction industry and raised questions regarding the use of California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery (Education Code sections 17400 et seq.). California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery provides an alternative project delivery method for public school districts than the usual design-bid-build method of project delivery. Under the lease-leaseback method of project delivery, a school district leases its property to a developer, who in turn builds a school facility on the property and leases it back to the school district. One of the benefits of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that school districts do not need to come up with construction funds to build school facilities since they pay for the construction over time through their lease payments to the developer. Critics, however, argue that because lease-leaseback projects do not need to be competitively bid, they are ripe for cronyism between developers and school districts. In Davis, a taxpayer successfully brought suit against the Fresno Unified School District challenging the propriety of a lease-leaseback project because the entirety of the District’s “lease payments” occurred while the project was being constructed and thus, successfully argued the taxpayer, there was no “true” lease of a facility since it was under construction. 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

English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

November 02, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters, Scott P. DeVries, Patrick M. McDermott & Jorge R. Aviles - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a decision that will influence how policyholders and insurers around the world address business-interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, the English High Court recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the “Test Case,” The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v. Arch et al. The High Court’s comprehensive analysis will likely serve as an additional tool in policyholders’ arsenal in the ongoing battles over COVID-19 coverage. The Panel, composed of two well-respected judges, one from the High Court (the UK’s trial court) and the other from the English Court of Appeal, analyzed 21 sample policy wordings in coverage extensions for business-interruption losses due to disease or the issuance of public authority orders. (Many of these wordings are also found in policies sold to US policyholders.) The High Court found that the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing government actions fell within the coverage provided by the sample policy wordings. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Judicial Council Votes to Rescind Prohibitions on Eviction and Foreclosure Proceedings

September 28, 2020 — David Rao & Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The California Judicial Council’s emergency rules staying evictions and judicial foreclosures are coming to an end. On March 27, 2020, the Governor of California issued executive order N-38-20, giving the Judicial Council emergency authority to act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council of California voted to approve temporary emergency rules of court. Rule 1 prohibited the issuance of a summons, or the entering of a default, in an eviction action for both residential and commercial properties except as necessary to protect public health and safety. Rule 1 also continued all pending unlawful detainer trials for at least 60 days, with no new trials being set until at least 60 days after a request was filed. Rule 2 stayed all pending judicial foreclosure actions, tolled the statute of limitations, and extended the deadlines for responding to such actions. Rule 1 and Rule 2 were to remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor declared the state of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic lifted, or until repealed by action of the Judicial Council. On August 13, 2020, the Judicial Council voted 19-1 to sunset Rule 1 and Rule 2 as of September 1, 2020. Beginning September 2, 2020, California state courts are authorized to issue summons on unlawful detainer actions, enter defaults, and set trial dates on request. Stays on pending judicial foreclosure actions will be lifted. Reprinted courtesy of David Rao, Snell & Wilmer and Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Rao may be contacted at drao@swlaw.com Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Appeals Court Says Loss of Use Is “Property Damage” Under Liability Policy, and Damages Can be Measured by Diminished Value

December 11, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a win for policyholders, a California appellate court has held that the loss of use of property resulting from alleged negligence constitutes property damage under a liability insurance policy. In Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, the property owner, Thee Sombrero, operated a venue as a nightclub. After a shooting inside the nightclub caused a patron’s death, the local government revoked Sombrero’s right to use the property as a nightclub and, instead, limited permissible use of the property to a banquet hall. Sombrero sued the security company it had hired to keep guns out of the club, alleging that it was the security company’s negligence that caused the city to revoke Sombrero’s nightclub use permit and that the loss of use of the facility as a nightclub resulted in damages of almost a million dollars based on an assessment of the property’s diminished market value. The security company did not contest the claim, and Sombrero obtained a default judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David M. Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When is a “Willful” Violation Willful (or Not) Under California’s Contractor Enforcement Statutes?

April 17, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The enforcement statutes applicable to the California Contractors’ State License Board aren’t exactly models in clarity. A few examples: 1. Business and Professions Code Section 7107: Abandonment without legal excuse of any construction project or operation engaged in or undertaken by the license as a contractor constitutes a cause for disciplinary action. 2. Business and Professions Code Section 7109: A willful departure in any material respect from accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction constitutes a cause for disciplinary action, unless the departure was in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by or under the direct supervision of an architect. 3. Business and Professions Code Section 7110: Willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the building laws of the state, or any political subdivision thereof, . . . or of the safety or labor laws or compensation insurance laws or Unemployment Insurance Code of the State, or of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practice Act, or violation by any licensee of any provision of the Health and Safety Code or Water Code, relating to the digging, boring, or drilling of water wells, constitutes a cause for disciplinary action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A $9 million construction project in Middleton, Wisconsin has been halted due to an allegation that the construction company, Newcomb, did not comply with the advertised bid requirements and they were not the lowest bidder, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. “Dane County Judge Rhonda Lanford issued a temporary restraining order at the request of Associated General Contractors of Wisconsin asking the city to stop work on the…facility,” the Wisconsin State Journal reported. “We are pleased with the court’s decision. Fairness and transparency in public contracting is critical for the industry,” Robert Barker, Associated’s executive vice president, told the Wisconsin State Journal. “The city must abide by the rules so that all bidders are given a fair shake.” However, the city stated that Newcomb was the construction company with the lowest bid in that category. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final

March 29, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In subcontracts, it is not uncommon to see a provision that says something to the effect: Should any dispute arise between the parties respecting the true construction or interpretation of the Plans, Specifications and/or the Contract Requirements, the decision of the Owner or the Owner’s designated representative as set forth in the General Contract shall be final. This is a provision in a subcontract dealing with dispute resolution, typically when there is a dispute as to whether the subcontractor is performing extra-contractual or base contract work regarding an “interpretation of the Plans, Specifications, and/or the Contract Requirements.” It is not uncommon for there to be a dispute as to whether certain work is within the subcontractor’s scope of work or outside the subcontractor’s scope of work and subject to a change order. 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

How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

May 24, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc, 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) , affectionately knows as Boston Harbor, is the seminal Supreme Court decision that held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not preempt government mandated project labor agreements (“PLAs”) if the government entity is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator. Boston Harbor has led to many believing that virtually all PLAs are legal when the government agency is a project owner or if the PLA involves a private project. However, does Boston Harbor really cut that far? In short, no. The primary issue in Boston Harbor was one of preemption. The Supreme Court addressed whether the NLRA preempted state and local laws and ordinances mandating PLAs. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court said there is no preemption if the government is acting as a market participant. What the Court did not address is whether other federal statutes invalidate PLAs. Specifically, whether PLA’s can run afoul of Section 8(e), the so called “hot cargo” provisions, of the NLRA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES