Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Attorney’s Fees Entitlement And Application Under Subcontract Default Provision

May 06, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Many subcontracts contain a provision in the default section that reads something to the effect: “Upon any default, Subcontractor shall pay to Contractor its attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in enforcing this Subcontract or seeking any remedies hereunder.” Oftentimes, a party may wonder as to the enforceability of the provision and how it is applied in the context of a dispute between a contractor and its subcontractor where both parties have asserted claims against the other. In an opinion out of the Middle District of Georgia, U.S. f/u/b/o Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. Stellar Group, Inc., 2019 WL 338887 (M.D.Ga. 2019), a subcontractor and prime contractor on a federal construction project each asserted claims against the other in the approximate amount of $4 Million, meaning there was a potential $8 Million swing in the dispute. The subcontract contained a provision entitling the contractor to recover attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing the subcontract or seeking remedies under the subcontract upon any default, identical to the provision above. 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

Architect Sues School District

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
SFL+A Architects is suing the Marlboro County, South Carolina School District over $690,000 that the architect claims is owed to it by the school district. The firm did design work for the Blenheim Elementary Middle School, which opened in January. The architectural firm contends that the school district refused to pay for anything outside of basic services and failed to pay the full amount on those either. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Will There Be Construction Defect Legislation Introduced in the 2019 Colorado Legislative Session?

March 18, 2019 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
With the 2019 Colorado legislative session well underway, the construction industry is waiting with bated breath to see what the Democrat controlled legislature might do with respect to construction defect legislation. In recent years, having a split legislature has prevented any attempts to roll back positive changes in the law, either from the legislature or Colorado courts, that have been hailed by the construction community. This year, odds are good that we will see at least one bill similar to two introduced last year that would hinder the ability to have disputes decided by binding arbitration. While not full frontal assaults on the Colorado Supreme Court decision in the Vallagio case, HB18-1261, the “Colorado Arbitration Fairness Act,” and HB 18-1262, the “Arbitration Services Provider Transparency Act,” would have negatively impacted the ability to resolve any type of case through arbitration. Anything that prevents the resolution of construction defect cases through arbitration will increase the judgments and settlements in such cases, ultimately increasing the costs of construction and for insurance for those in the industry. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to SF Gate, almost “every one of the 423 steel rods that anchor the tower of the new Bay Bridge eastern span to its base has been sitting in potentially corrosive water, Caltrans officials said Tuesday — one of the most serious construction defects found yet on the $6.4 billion project.” About a year ago, “steel rods crucial to seismic-stabilizing structures on the bridge snapped when they were tensioned.” Fixing those rods cost $25 million, while an additional $20 million had been spent determing if “additional rods and bolts are at risk of failing.” In regards to the latest construction defects discovered, Caltrans’ chief engineer on the project, Brian Maroney, stated, “It’s not acceptable, and we’re going to fix it.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

March 04, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held last week in Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co. that two insurers must contribute proportionally to the defense of an additional insured under their comprehensive liability policies. In 2008, torrential rainstorms battered the Milwaukee area for two days. The downpour overwhelmed the city’s sewer system, causing significant flooding in homes throughout the region. Out of those floods sprang several lawsuits against the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (“MMSD”) for negligent inspection, maintenance, repair, and operation of Milwaukee’s sewage system. MMSD was an additional insured under liability policies covering two other water service providers responsible for the city’s sewer systems. The first policy was issued by Greenwich Insurance Company for United Water Services Milwaukee, LLC, and the second was issued by Steadfast Insurance Company for Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC. After learning of the lawsuits, MMSD tendered its defense of the sewage suits to both insurers. Steadfast accepted the defense; but Greenwich refused, claiming that its policy was excess to Steadfast’s based on an “other insurance” clause in Greenwich’s policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David 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

Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

August 06, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Indirect notice to the insurer was sufficient to trigger coverage for the additional insured under a liability policy. Spoleta Constr., LLC v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5174 (N.Y. App. Div. July 11, 2014). An employee of the subcontractor was injured at the construction project on October 20, 2008. The general contractor was named as an additional insured on the subcontractor's CGL policy with Aspen. Under the subcontract, the subcontractor also agreed to defend and indemnify the general contractor for all claims arising out of the subcontractor's work. The general contractor did not receive notice of the accident until late December 2009 in a letter from the injured employee's attorney. On January 27, 2010, the general contractor's liability carrier sent a letter to the subcontractor giving notice of the employee's claim and requesting that the subcontractor put its carrier on notice. On February 9, 2010, the subcontractor sent to Aspen a claim form with the January 2010 letter attached. 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

New Jersey Firm’s Fee Action Tossed for not Filing Substitution of Counsel

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Even though their client had terminated their services by email, a “New Jersey appeals court has tossed out a firm’s fee action” finding that the firm had “remained counsel of record because it did not file a substitution of counsel until almost a year later,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. In Arturi, D’Argenio, Guagliardi & Meliti v. Sadej, Jesse and Carla Sadej had retained the firm, Arturi, D’Argenio, Guagliardi & Meliti, “to defend them in the underlying land use litigation brought in 2002 by the borough of Seaside Park, N.J.” The case had been dismissed, but was reinstated in 2009 by an appeals court. At that time, Arturi D’Argenio told the Sadejs that they would need to sign a new retainer agreement in order to continue representation. On July 18, 2010, the Sadejs emailed the firm stating that they were “officially terminated,” according to the opinion as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. The firm sued the Sadejs “for about $100,000 in fees it was allegedly owed from the Seaside Park case and other matters on behalf of Jesse Sadej.” However, a substitution of attorney wasn’t filed until months later. The case went to the appeals court, which stated that the firm should have withdrawn immediately after receiving the email notification from their client: “Because it failed to do so, it remained counsel of record and therefore was precluded from initiating the collection action at that point,” the judges said, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Professional Liability Alert: Joint Client Can't Claim Privilege For Communications With Attorney Sued By Another Joint Client

February 05, 2015 — David W. Evans and Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Anten v. Superior Court (No. B258437 – Filed 1/30/2015), the Second Appellate District held that when joint clients do not sue each other, but one of them sues their former attorney, the nonsuing client cannot prevent the parties to the malpractice suit from discovering or introducing otherwise privileged attorney-client communications made in the course of the joint representation. Under California Evidence Code §958, in lawsuits between an attorney and a client based on an alleged breach of a duty arising from their attorney-client relationship, communications relevant to the alleged breach are not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Similarly, Evidence Code §962 provides that if multiple clients retain or consult with an attorney on a matter of common interest and the joint clients later sue each other, then the communications between either client and the attorney made in the course of that relationship are not privileged in the suit between the clients. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES