Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

July 19, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Fights between contractors can be a bit like Mad magazine’s “Spy vs. Spy” with each side trying to out outwit and one-up one another. The next case, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Built Pacific, Inc., Case No. D076601 (March 15, 2021), is a case in point. The Built Pacific Case Built Pacific, Inc. was a subcontractor to Austin Sundt Joint Venture on a public works project known as the San Diego Regional Airport Authority Project. In 2015, following an investigation by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), the DLSE issued a Civil Wage Penalty Assessment of $119,319.76 based on Built Pacific’s failure to pay prevailing wages. The DLSE also named Austin Sundt in the Civil Wage Assessment pursuant to Labor Code 1743 which makes contractors and subcontractors jointly and severally liable for wage violations. As a result of the Civil Wage Assessment, Austin Sundt withheld approximately $70,000 in retention from Built Pacific. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

August 10, 2017 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Having successfully helped to restore power to two North Carolina barrier islands, PCL Civil Constructors now faces the fallout from a July 27 construction incident that forced a week-long evacuation of 60,000 visitors, putting a potential multimillion-dollar dent in the region’s tourism-dependent economy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

February 28, 2018 — Ben Reeves – Real Estate Litigation blog / Snell & Wilmer
Introduction Arizona’s trustee’s sale statutory scheme provides for the waiver of all defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale that: (i) are not raised prior to the sale, and (ii) do not result in an injunction against the sale going forward. See A.R.S. § 33-811(C). In other words, if you have an objection to a trustee’s sale, you must seek and obtain an injunction prior to the sale or your objection will be waived. Arizona’s Court of Appeals previously held that notwithstanding this statutory waiver, “common law” defenses to repayment of the debt survive a non-judicial foreclosure even in the absence of an injunction prior to the sale. See Morgan AZ Financial, L.L.C. v. Gotses, 235 Ariz. 21, 326 P.3d 288 (Ct. App. 2014). Our analysis of the Morgan decision can be found here. In Zubia v. Shapiro, 243 Ariz. 412, 408 P.3d 1248 (2018), the Arizona Supreme Court revisited the issue of what claims survive a trustee’s sale, and clarified that if a person fails to enjoin a trustee’s sale prior to its occurrence, then that person waives any and all damages claims dependent upon a trustee’s sale. That person does not, however, waive damages claims that are independent of the sale. Thus, determining what types of claims are “dependent” versus “independent” of a trustee’s sale is of critical importance to lenders and borrowers alike. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

Construction in the Time of Coronavirus

March 30, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
One cannot look look at one’s phone, computer or even the road outside the window without seeing signs of the impact that coronavirus (COVD-19) is having on the world at large. Schools are shut down, traffic is lighter and there is the daily count of new confirmed cases, in Virginia and elsewhere. “Social distancing” is the buzzword of the day. I am writing this post from a home office because of CDC and other guidance regarding the best way to “flatten the curve.” We have all been told to avoid large groups and stay close to home. All of this is well and good, but construction must go on. In travelling around Richmond, I see construction vehicles on the road quite a bit. This is a good thing. It seems that most of the Richmond, Virginia area contractors are trying to stay as close to “business as usual” as possible while still remaining vigilant and careful to follow CDC and OSHA guidelines on workplace activity and COVD-19. However, the situation is ever changing and government and other outside forces could lead to project slowdowns, project shutdowns or other virus related impacts to everything from permitting to staffing of a project. As I have discussed, likely ad nauseam, any commercial or residential construction project is controlled by a series of contracts (hopefully well drafted) that control the relationships on the job. Subcontractors in particular have the provisions of their subcontract and those of the prime contract to worry about. One of the major provisions that could trip up any construction professionals on these jobs is the notice provision of the subcontract (thanks for the reminder go to a friend and fellow construction lawyer Mark Cobb at his blog). 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

DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

December 17, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I know. You’re busy. Perhaps even a bit overwhelmed. You’ve got trees to trim, halls to deck with boughs of holly, and when you throw in (the office, your kids’ school, and the bowling league’s) holiday parties, you’re at the point where you’ve got visions of sugar plums (although it may vary) dancing through your head. Well, the DIR has come to give you its own yuletide greeting. Think of it as a Christmas card of sorts. Merry Christmas. The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) announced today that a mandatory renewal deadline is approaching for contractors who bid or work on public works projects in California. Contractors whose public works contractor registration expired June 30, 2015, and have ongoing public works projects or plan to bid on new ones, must pay the $300 renewal fee before January 1, 2016 or face an additional $2,000 late penalty after that date. 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

New Jersey Construction Company Owner and Employees Arrested for Fraud

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Frank Chimento, Jr., the owner of Chimento Construction of Parsippany, New Jersey, and three of his employees, Joseph Carsillo, Frank Chimento III, and Carl J. Corso, were arrested by federal agents. The elder Chimento is accused of falsifying his own income taxes, as well as failing to collect and turn over federal and state payroll taxes. He is additionally charged with falsifying union benefit fund contributions. The three employees are also accused of filing false income tax statements and also of attempting to defraud the state of New Jersey of unemployment compensation benefits. An additional unnamed conspirator made transactions at multiple financial institutions in order to pay employees directly in cash. One of the three employees, Mr. Carsillo, worked for the company and received cash payments while maintaining to the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development that he was unemployed. Mr. Carsillo was receiving $526 per week from the NJDOL-WD in unemployment benefits, starting in 2009. From 2009 through 2011, Mr. Carsillo received $19,988 in unemployment benefits and an additional $351,788 in wages from Chimento. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Unpost, Post: Dynamex and the Construction Indianapolis

July 10, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s been three months since the California Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, Case No. S222732 (April 30, 2018) and I’ve had a couple of readers (perhaps my only two) ask whether I was going to write about the decision. I’m not. Well, obviously, that’s not quite true if you’re reading this. Rather, I’ll tell you why I’m writing about not writing about the decision. Dynamex is certainly an important decision and one that will likely be cited for decades to come. In short, Dynamex changed the nearly 30-year old test, first elucidated in S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, for determining whether a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor or an employee. 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

Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

October 15, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
I have discussed both payment bond claims under the Miller Act and alternate dispute resolution (ADR) here at Construction Law Musings on many an occasion. A question that is sometimes open is what to do when there is contractually mandated arbitration for claims “relating to the contract or the work.” While here in Virginia, as in most places, the courts will almost automatically send any breach of contract case with such a clause to arbitration, a question exists whether the claim against the bond held by a surety that is not a party to the contract is subject to being referred. Well, in a recent opinion the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Norfolk weighed in on this question where there was no opposition or objection to a motion to stay pending arbitration. In U.S. for Use of Harbor Construction Co. Inc. v. THR Enterprises Inc. the Court considered a fairly typical payment dispute leading to a Miller Act claim. The general contractor and surety filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively stay the litigation based upon a clause in the contract between general contractor and subcontractor allowing the general contractor to elect the type of ADR to be used to resolve the dispute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES