SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums

January 18, 2021 — William E. Underwood Partner, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Withholding sums during a dispute can be an effective and perfectly legitimate means to protect against the harms caused by another party’s breach. However, withholding too much money during a dispute can turn a position of strength into one of weakness. “Why should I fund the other side’s litigation war chest?” and “Isn’t this just a display of weakness?” are common questions raised by contractors when this issue is discussed. Often, the contractor is well within its contractual or legal rights to withhold money from a breaching subcontractor (another topic for another day). But it may not always be in a contractor’s best interest to withhold every single penny available. This article addresses some of the long-term implications for failing to return withheld sums, including the potential to recover attorneys’ fees, possible bad faith, accruing interest, and overall litigation costs. Admittedly, it can be hard to give money back in the middle of a dispute. But sometimes it can positively impact the overall outcome of the case. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

---

Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

August 04, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

On July 28, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled in Clasen Fruit & Cold Storage v. Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. that more than six years had passed since a contractor had concluded work and so granted a summary dismissal of the suit.



Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. (F&M) was contracted to construct several buildings for Clasen Fruit and Cold Storage. These were completed in March, 1999. The buildings suffered wind damage to the roofs in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2006. In the first two incidents, F&M repaired the roofs with Clasen paying for repairs.



In 2005, Clasen hired Continuous Gutter to make repairs. The final incident was the collapse of the roof of one building. This was attributed to “excessive moisture in the roof’s vapor barriers.” At this point, Clasen demanded that F&M pay for repair and replacement costs. In 2008, Clasen sued F&M for damages for breach of contract and negligent design and construction of the roof.



The decision then covered the meanings, in Washington law, of “termination of services” and “substantial completion.” The panel concluded that construction was “substantially completed in 1997” and “relevant services” by 2001. “But Clasen did not sue until 2008, some seven years after termination of any roof related services.”



Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

November 29, 2021 — Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw - ConsensusDocs
The Miller Act (the “Act”), which requires the prime contractor to furnish a performance bond and a payment bond to the government, protects “all persons supplying labor and materials carrying out the work provided for in the contract.”[1] Despite its broad language, courts have limited the parties who may actually assert a claim under the Act. This article introduces general background of the Act, identifies subcontractors who may qualify for protections under the Act, and suggests ways to preserve the rights as prime contractors. Brief Background of the Miller Act Under the Miller Act, there are two types of bonds the prime contractor furnishes to the government in a federal construction contract of more than $100,000[2] 1. Performance Bond A performance bond protects the United States and guarantees the completion of the project in accordance with the contract’s terms and conditions.[3] This bond must be with a surety that is satisfactory to the officer awarding the contract and in the amount the officer considers adequate for government protection.[4] If a contractor abandons a project or fails to perform, the bond itself will cover the government’s cost of substitute performance. Thus, the performance bond disincentivizes contractors from abandoning projects and provides the government with reassurance that an abandonment will not create delays or additional expenses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw, Fox Rothschild LLP
Ms. McGraw may be contacted at dmcgraw@foxrothschild.com

---

Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

June 10, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has ruled against a couple who sued their lawyer, after they were unhappy with the results of a construction defect case. Craig and Jeanne Petrik sued Mahaffey and Associates for legal malpractice and breach of contract. Their lawyer, Douglas L. Mahaffey, had settled their case for $400,000. The Petricks claimed Mahaffey did not have the authority make an offer to compromise.

In the original case, Mahaffey held back the $400,000 awarded in the settlement until he and the Petricks came to terms on how much of that was owed to Mahaffey. The lower court concluded that the Petricks were due $146,323,18. The jury did not agree with the Petrik’s claim that conditions had been met in which Mahaffey would not be charging them costs.

Judges O’Leary and Ikola wrote the opinion, with the third judge on the panel, Judge Bedworth offering a dissent only on their view of the cost waiver clause.

Read the court’s opinion

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

December 22, 2019 — Jonathan R. Harwood - Traub Lieberman Perspectives
On August 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner obtained summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action involving a claim for coverage for a personal injury action involving injuries suffered on a construction site. The plaintiff in the underlying action was performing excavation in a basement of a building in Manhattan so the owner could install a pool. During the course of the excavation plaintiff fell 13 feet from a plank, into the excavated pit, suffering serious injuries. Traub Lieberman’s client issued a CGL policy to the building owner and the insured sought coverage for the suit under that policy. The insurer denied coverage based on an endorsement to the policy that stated the insured could only contract directly with a specified general contractor. The plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor and the insurer believed the insured had contracted directly with that unapproved subcontractor. The insured denied it had done, contending the subcontractor had been hired by the general contractor identified in the endorsement. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman Mr. Harwood may be contacted at jharwood@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Costs Absorb Two Big Hits This Quarter

July 14, 2016 — Tim Grogan and Bruce Buckley – Engineering News-Record
Two big events hit construction this quarter: Brexit—that is, the British vote to leave the European Union— and the U.S government’s decision to increase tariff duties on Chinese cold-rolled flat steel by 522%. However, neither will have much of an impact on domestic construction costs, according to ENR’s sources. Reprinted courtesy of Tim Grogan, ENR and Bruce Buckley, ENR Mr. Grogan may be contacted at grogant@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Over a Hundred Thousand Superstorm Sandy Cases Re-Opened

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced yesterday that they will be reopening 144,000 flood insurance claims, reported the New Jersey Law Journal. The announcement comes weeks after reports that “some insurance companies denied thousands of claims after fraudulently altering engineering reports, as well as complaints that insurance companies systematically underpay on claims because they fear a backlash from FEMA.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW

March 22, 2021 — Michael Krueger - Newmeyer Dillion
The American Rescue Plan Act (“Act”) was passed by the Senate over the weekend and passed by the House today. President Biden is set to sign the Act into law on Friday, March 12th. The Act has $1.9 Trillion in relief funds with $28.6 Billion set aside for the restaurant industry in the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“Fund”). The Fund has apportioned funds into two funding groups; $5 Billion for restaurants with annual gross revenue under $500,000 and $23.6 Billion for restaurants over $500,000 in annual gross revenue. Differences from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) This is a grant program with no loan documents or forgiveness applications. Instead, each restaurant entity can apply for and receive up to $10M in grant funds through the Act. The amount a restaurant receives is based on the sum of the restaurant’s gross revenue in 2019 minus the gross revenue in 2020 minus PPP and EIDL money received. For example, Restaurant A made $7M gross revenue in 2019, made $3M gross revenue in 2020 and received $1M in PPP and EIDL combined. ($7M - $3M -$1M =$3M) The restaurant will receive $3M in grant funds directly from the SBA (as long as funds are available). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Krueger, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Krueger may be contacted at michael.krueger@ndlf.com

---