Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Application Of Two Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-For-Delay And Liquidated Damages

February 14, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Florida opinion between a prime contractor and a Florida public body touches upon two important issues: (1) the application of a no-damage-for-delay provision; and (2) the application of a liquidated damages provision. Both provisions find there way into many construction contracts. Unfortunately, the opinion is sparse on facts. Nevertheless, the application of these provisions is worthy of consideration. In this opinion, Sarasota County v. Southern Underground Industries, Inc., 2022 WL 162977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), a county hired a contractor to install sanitary and water piping underneath a waterway. During construction, a nearby homeowner complained that vibration from the drilling caused damage to his home. As a result, the county stopped the contractor’s work to address a potential safety issue, as it was contractually entitled to do. The contractor hired a structural engineer to inspect the house and the engineer issued a report determining that any alleged damage was cosmetic and that there was sufficient monitoring of the vibrations to prevent future damage. The contractor also had an insurance policy to cover any homeowner claim for damage. However, upon receipt of the engineer’s report, the county did not lift its stop work order. Rather, the stop work order remained in place for an additional 71 days. 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

Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.

September 07, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s the case that has turned into a modern day Hatfield versus McCoy – McGee v. Torrance Unified School District, Case No. 8298122, 2nd District Court of Appeals (May 29, 2020) – a series of cases challenging the validity of certain lease-leaseback construction contracts in California. In shootout number one, James McGee sued the Torrance Unified School District challenging the validity of lease-leaseback contracts the District had entered into with general contractor Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC. Under California’s lease-leaseback statute, a school district can lease property it owns to a developer, who in turns builds a school facility on the property and leases the facility back to the school district. The primary benefit of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that a school district does not need to come up with money to build the facility because the district pays for the facility over time through lease payments to the developer. In shootout number one, McGee argued that Torrance Unified School District was required to competitively bid the lease-leasebacks projects. The 2nd District Court of Appeals disagreed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

April 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A Rockwall County, Texas “jury has awarded a $20.8 million verdict against a Dallas homebuilder for performing substandard work on a local family's home and refusing to accept responsibility,” according to a press release published in The Wall Street Journal. The lawsuit alleged that “the defendants were aware that the site of the Hales' future Highpoint Lake Estates home had significant foundation defects before construction began. The Hales said Mr. Halsey later promised that his company would take responsibility by fixing the structural defects that arose after construction, but he reneged and refused to repair the problems.” The award included “damages for the cost of repairs, lost value and additional penalties based on Mr. Halsey's actions and the defendants' ‘grossly negligent’ conduct, including violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The jury award includes attorneys' fees for the Hales' legal team.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

May 18, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. KLA-Tencor Corp. (No. H044890; filed 1/16/20, ord. pub. 2/13/20), a California appeals court ruled that commercial general liability insurance for personal and advertising injury, defined to include malicious prosecution, does not cover a Walker Process antitrust cause of action under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act for using a fraudulently procured patent to attempt to monopolize the market. Travelers insured KLA under commercial liability policies with coverage for personal and advertising injury liability, which was defined as “injury, other than ‘advertising injury’, caused by. . . (2) Malicious prosecution.” Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Survey of New Texas Environmental Laws

December 30, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
This is a brief survey of many of the environmental and regulatory laws passed by the Texas Legislature and signed by the Governor in the 86th Regular Session of the Legislature, which ended in May 2019. Altogether, more than 1,300 laws were enacted in this session, including a surprising number of environmentally related bills. Most of these new laws take effect on September 1, 2019. This survey places them in the following broad categories: Air, Water; Waste; Disaster (principally because of the effects of Hurricane Harvey); and Miscellaneous. (Special thanks to Jay Bowlby, a summer intern in our Houston office, who made a significant contribution to this survey.) 1. Air HB 1627—amends Section 386.001(2) of the Health and Safety Code to remove several counties from the list of counties with deteriorating air quality subject to the Texas Emissions Reductions Plan. HB 1346—relates to the diesel emissions reductions incentives and gives the TCEQ flexibility in administering this program. HB 2726—concerns amended air quality permit applications. The law provides that construction of a project may proceed, at the applicant’s own risk, after the TCEQ Executive Director has issued a draft permit including the permit amendment. However, this provision does not apply to a permit amendment affecting a concrete batch plant located within 888 yards of a residence. HB 3725—creates the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Trust Fund, which will be held by the Comptroller and administered by the TCEQ, which also administers the TERP program. SB 698—authorizes the TCEQ to provide expedited processing of certain Texas Clean Air Act permit applications by increasing the agency’s permitting staff. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Construction Defect or Just Punch List?

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A couple in Dickinson, North Dakota have put big, green “buyer beware” signs on their home. They’re not planning on selling, but just trying to warn prospective neighbors of the problems they’ve had since moving into their new home. Andrea Thermes said her problems included leaking windows and uneven floors. “I absolutely love my house,” she said. “If we didn’t have the issues, I would be the happiest girl in the world.” One problem was a leaking picture window in her living room. The builder replaced it, but the first window that arrived was the wrong size. The new home is still under a warranty and the builder has been fixing issues as they arise. “They are upset with some of the problems they have had,” said William Henry, president of B-Dev, the builder of the home. Since Ms. Thermes’s window wasn’t repaired in time for Thanksgiving, Mr. Henry sent wine and beer to her home. “Not that that makes up for not having their window, but we’re trying to make this work and trying to appease them,” he said. But Mr. Henry said that some of the problems “are not really material defects,” characterizing them as “punch-list and warranty items.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act

June 08, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the Contract Disputes Act (41 USC 7101 en seq.), when a contractor submits a claim to the government in excess of $100,000, the claim MUST contain a certification of good faith, as follows: For claims of more than $100,000 made by a contractor, the contractor shall certify that– (A) the claim is made in good faith; (B) the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief; (C) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal Government is liable; and (D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1). See also 48 C.F.R. s. 33.207(c) as to the wording of the certification. The contracting officer is not required to render a final decision on the claim within 60 days if, during this time period, he/she notifies the contractor of the reasons why the certification is defective. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(3). Importantly, the contracting officer’s failure to render a decision within 60 days is deemed an appealable denial. 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

Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

February 27, 2019 — Stephen M. Tye & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Orange County Water District v. The Arnold Engineering Company (D070763), the Fourth Appellate District examined the criteria for evaluating the reasonableness of a parties’ denial of requests for admission (RFA’s) based upon their expert’s opinions and the proof required to recover costs for unreasonable denials. In Orange County Water District, the Orange County Water District (the District) sued several current and former owners and operators of industrial sites, including The Arnold Engineering Company (Arnold), to recover expenses associated with groundwater cleanup efforts intended to address groundwater contamination caused by volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) and other chemicals. Over six years, the parties conducted extensive discovery, including document productions, depositions, and soil sampling and monitoring. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES