Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

August 10, 2020 — Hal J. Perloff - Construction Executive
We’ve all heard the expression that those who deal with the government must turn square corners. This is because the government has a broad array of tools at its disposal to motivate, coax and cajole contractors and federal grant recipients to play by the rules. Those tools include harsh measures such as criminal prosecution and civil false claims act enforcement on the one hand and poor CPARS ratings on the other. A seemingly less severe administrative option available to the government is suspension and debarment. However, any entity that has been suspended or debarred knows that these measures can prove harsh and disruptive. While the numbers of suspensions and debarments have declined from the all-time high in 2011, there is still significant activity. In its FY 2018 report, the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee reported 2444 referrals, 480 suspensions, 1542 proposed debarments and 1334 debarments. The number of referrals for suspension and debarment in FY 2018 is almost exactly the same as the number of GAO bid protests filed that year. WHAT IS SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT? Suspension and debarment are the government’s tools to avoid entities it views as a high risk for poor performance, fraud, waste and abuse. Suspension and debarment preclude a business entity or individual from contracting with the government or from receiving grants, loans, loan guarantees or other forms of assistance from the government. A suspension is a temporary exclusion when the government determines immediate action is necessary pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceeding. A debarment is an exclusion for a defined, reasonable period of time—often three years. Reprinted courtesy of Hal J. Perloff, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Perloff may be contacted at hal.perloff@huschblackwell.com

You Have Choices (Litigation Versus Mediation)

December 14, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As I sit here thinking about an impending trial in the Goochland County General District Court, it hit me that I also serve as a mediator in that court from time to time. Coincidentally, I will be “wearing both hats” (litigator and mediator) this week on back to back days. It will be interesting to have to switch roles so quickly on back to back days. While I don’t have the results of this thought experiment as I sit here typing this post, the timeline does bring into focus the two possible avenues to resolve a dispute. Neither is perfect and either works in the proper situation. Both lend a final “result” and closure to the dispute, they just each do so in a different manner and with a different role for me, the construction attorney/construction mediator. 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

SB 721 – California Multi-Family Buildings New Require Inspections of “EEEs”

December 19, 2018 — Brenda Radmacher - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Many in the construction industry and multi-family development field have been closely following Senate Bill 721, or the “Balcony Bill,” regarding new requirements for building owners associated with decks and balconies. After almost a dozen amendments, the “Balcony Bill” finally passed in the state legislature with an overwhelming majority and was signed into law September 17th, 2018, by Governor Jerry Brown. Balconies and decks, called “Exterior Elevated Elements” (“EEE”) in the statute, are common features in most multi-family buildings in California – where better to enjoy the California sun? However, many of the structures have proven to be problematic at best due to complex intersections of construction trades and design issues as well as limited understanding and effectuation of maintenance. Indeed, the “Balcony Bill” arose largely out of an outcry following the 2015 balcony collapse in Berkeley in 2015, which left six young people dead and another seven injured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com

CA Supreme Court: Right to Repair Act (SB 800) is the Exclusive Remedy for Residential Construction Defect Claims – So Now What?

January 31, 2018 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra - Publications & Insights
A torrent of alerts have been flooding e-mail inboxes regarding the California Supreme Court’s decision in McMillin v. Superior Court, to reverse the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) case, but with little discussion about the practical effects of the ruling. This alert will discuss how this ruling affects litigation of SB 800 Claims and Builders. Background on Liberty Mutual Case In 2002, the California Legislature enacted comprehensive construction defect litigation reform referred to as the Right to Repair Act (the “Act”). Among other things, the Act establishes standards for residential dwellings, and creates a prelitigation process that allows builders an opportunity to cure the construction defects before being sued. Since its enactment, however, the Act’s application has been up for debate. Most notably, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held the Act was the exclusive remedy only in instances where the defects caused only economic loss, and that homeowners could pursue other remedies in situations where the defects caused actual property damage or personal injuries. Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Negligent Failure to Respond to Settlement Offer Is Not Bad Faith

May 03, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit found that the insurer's negligent failure to respond to a settlement offer did not constitute bad faith. McDaniel v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4029 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017). McDaniel was the assignee of claims against GEICO assigned by the insured after settling a wrongful death suit. McDaniel alleged that GEICO unreasonably refused to accept a $100,000 policy limits offer. The case went to trial and a jury awarded McDaniel over $3 million against the insured. On August 7, 2009, McDaniel's attorney Steven Nichols extended a $100,000 policy limits settlement offer with a fifteen day acceptance deadline to GEICO's attorney Michael Griott. The parties subsequently agreed to extend the acceptance deadline to ten days following MacDaniel's service of responses to outstanding interrogatories, which Nichols hand-delivered to Griott on August 27, 2009. On September 1, 2009, Griott emailed GEICO claims adjuster Aldin Buenaventura with a letter attachment indicating that Nichols had submitted the requested interrogatories and, in bold and underlined text, that "[o]ur response to Plaintiff's policy limits demand is due on or before September 11, 2009. 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

Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

November 21, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Originally published by CDJ on November 15, 2017 I read once that 97 percent of cases never go to trial. However, there are still the ones that do. And, then, there are the ones that do both. The following case, Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. E063551 (September 8, 2017), highlights some of the issues that can arise when portions of cases settle and other portions go to trial, the recovery of delay damages on a construction project through insurance, and the recovery of attorneys’ fees. Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs contracted with general contractor Kadena Pacific, Inc. (Kadena) to oversee construction of its Center for Blind Rehabilitation in Menlo Park, California. Kadena, in turn, contracted with subcontractor Global Modular, Inc. (Global) to construct, deliver and install 53 modular units totaling more than 37,000 square feet for a contract price of approximately $3.5 million. 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

Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

October 26, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers. The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”). After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

November 23, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Recently, I read an informative article from another attorney addressing considerations of an owner when it receives a repair protocol in response to a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of defect letter. This is a well-written article and raises two important issues applicable to construction defect disputes: 1) how is an owner supposed to respond to a repair protocol submitted by a contractor in accordance with Florida’s 558 notice of construction defects procedure and 2) irrespective of Florida’s 558 procedure, how is an owner supposed to treat a contractual notice to cure / notice of defect requirement that requires the owner to give the contractor a notice to cure a defect. This article raises such pertinent points that I wanted to address the issues and topics raised in this article. 558 Procedure–Owner’s Receipt of Contractor’s Repair Protocol When a contractor submits a repair protocol to an owner in response to a notice of construction defects letter per Florida Statutes Chapter 558, the owner should seriously consider that protocol. The owner does this by discussing with counsel and any retained expert. The owner needs to know whether the protocol is a reasonable, cost-effective protocol to repair the asserted defects or, alternatively, whether the protocol is merely a band-aid approach and/or otherwise insufficiently addresses the claimed defects. Every scenario is different. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES