Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

February 18, 2019 — Sarah E. Carson - Smith Currie
The saying “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry” can too often apply in the construction industry. A contractor may receive a description of site conditions that is ultimately found flawed or misleading. The costs associated with addressing these surprise conditions often fall on the contractor to pay. The following article details proactive steps to avoid costly obstacles that may cause a project’s success to go awry. What are Differing Site Conditions? There are generally two recognized types of differing site conditions. The first, often referred to as a “Type I Changed Condition,” exists when a specification in the conditions indicated in the contract documents varies from what is represented. The second category, generally referred to as a “Type II Changed Condition,” is a variance so unusual in its nature that it materially differs from conditions ordinarily encountered in performing the type of work called for in the geographic area where the project is located. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah E. Carson, Smith Currie
Ms. Carson may be contacted at secarson@smithcurrie.com

Burden of Proof Under All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

January 31, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates

A recent Florida case, Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D164a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discusses the burden of proof of an insured in establishing coverage under an all-risk property insurance policy. Getting right to this critical point, the court explained the burden of proof as follows:

1. The insured has the initial burden of proof to establish that the damage at issue occurred during a period in which the damaged property had insurance coverage. If the insured fails to meet this burden, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insurer.

–

2. If the insured’s initial burden is met, the burden of proof shifts to the insurer to establish that (a) there was a sole cause of the loss, or (b) in cases where there was more than one cause, there was an “efficient proximate cause” of the loss.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges

August 26, 2015 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Lee v. Hanley (S220775 – Filed 8/20/2015), the California Supreme Court clarified the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 by holding that its limitations period applies to claims against attorneys “whose merits necessarily depend on proof that an attorney violated a professional obligation in the course of providing professional services.” Although it resolved a district split by finding that the statute governs for non-legal malpractice claims against attorneys including those of non-clients, by having the statute’s applicability “turn on the conduct alleged and ultimately proven, not on the way the complaint was styled,” this 5-2 decision also increased the specter of creative pleading and lengthy litigation. In Lee, the client had advanced $120,000 to cover attorney’s fees, costs and expert witness fees for the underlying litigation. After the case settled, the attorney advised the client that she had a credit balance of approximately $46,000. In response to her demand for a refund, the attorney then advised the client that she did not have a credit balance. More than one year later, the client filed suit to recover the $46,000, plus interest. The trial court sustained the attorney’s demurrer based on the one-year statute of limitations in section 340.6. The appellate court, however, reversed, reasoning that the client’s claim could be construed as one for conversion, in which case section 340.6 would not apply. 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

Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

April 01, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Charlotte Observer reported that a homebuilder couple “was arrested Tuesday on charges alleging that they kept more than $600,000 three families paid them to build Lake Wylie homes that were never completed.” Robert Scott Kuhlkin and wife, Sherry Lynn Kuhlkin “accepted $189,000 from one family, $239,000 from another family, and $233,000 from a third family to build houses, 16th Circuit assistant solicitor Matthew Hogge said in court, but instead they ‘took the money for themselves.’” The alleged victims told the court that the homes had defects or were left unfinished. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

January 03, 2022 — David S. Harvey, Jr. & Sarah Hock - Lewis Brisbois
Tampa, Fla. (December 16, 2021) - As has been widely publicized, the Biden Administration has attempted to impose various forms of vaccine mandates under a variety laws and programs. At the same time, we have seen a flurry of opposition to these efforts ranging from new state laws (for example, in Florida) to court challenges seeking to enjoin the effort. One of the federal mandates was issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and is applicable to staff at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified healthcare providers. Initially, fourteen states sued in opposition to the CMS mandate and were able to obtain a nationwide injunction issued by a federal district judge in Louisiana. That injunction was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has now issued a decision that awards points to both sides. The Fifth Circuit ruled the injunction only applies to the 14 states that participated in the Louisiana lawsuit and not nationwide. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia. This opinion has the potential to revive the CMS vaccine mandate in just over half of U.S. states. We can anticipate new suits will be filed as to other states, with the outcome still uncertain. It is unknown at this point whether the United States Supreme Court will agree to review the issues when such review is sought in the near future. Reprinted courtesy of David S. Harvey, Jr., Lewis Brisbois and Sarah Hock, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Harvey may be contacted at David.Harvey@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Hock may be contacted at Sarah.Hock@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

May 20, 2019 — Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
It is one of those dreaded business situations that plagues the construction industry, especially in times of economic downturn—what to do when a lower-tier entity files a lien against a property then disappears. It has happened to countless owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and even some particularly unlucky sub-tier subcontractors and suppliers. Here is how it arises: a project is moving along, then performance or payment issues arise, and a company that is over extended or unwilling to continue work stops performance, walks off the job, and files a lien against the property for whatever amounts were allegedly unpaid. Often, the allegedly unpaid sums were legitimately withheld due to a good faith dispute over payment/performance, and it is not unusual for the defaulting entity to not be entitled to any of the sums claimed in the lien. Regardless, the lien stays on the property, and pressure is applied from the “upstream” entities to the party who contracted with the defaulting entity to “deal” with the lien. Oftentimes, a contract will require the parties to “deal” with a lien by obtaining a lien release bond (“release bond”). For those lucky enough to not have encountered this issue, a release bond is a nifty statutory device whereby a surety agrees to record a release bond for the full claimed amount of the lien, with the release bond substituting in for the liened property, effectively discharging the property from liability under the lien. In other words, the lien is released from the property and attaches to the release bond. If the lien claimant recovers on its lien, it is technically satisfied by the surety providing the release bond (or the party who agrees to indemnify and defend the release bond). In exchange for delivering the release bond, the surety demands yearly premiums be paid on the release bond amount Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

City Council Authorizes Settlement of Basement Flooding Cases

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Last July in Dearborn, Michigan, “torrential rain” caused flooding to hundreds of basements, according to Press & Guide. Of the 250 claims filed by residents, “the city determined that about 150 were caused by defects in its water or sewer lines. About 125 of the claims to be settled are for more than $3,000; 26 are for $3,000 or less.” Press & Guide reported that “Attorney Tarek Baydoun, who is representing some clients whose basements flooded, asked about recourse for ‘botched’ claims, and was concerned because the city hasn’t released the list of those with whom it is settling.” The Mayor, Jack O’Reilly, stated that the law department would release the list to the city council. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New ConsensusDocs 242 Design Professional Change Order Form Helps Facilitate Compensation for Changes in Design Services

November 05, 2024 — Brian Perlberg - ConsensusDocs
ConsensusDocs is publishing a new ConsensusDocs 242 Change in Services and Compensation, a change order for design services by a design professional. In the design and construction industry, one thing is certain – change. The work scope included in basic design services an architect or engineer provides occurs somewhat regularly. Previously, ConsensusDocs did not have a standard contract document for changing design professionals’ prices. As a result of user feedback, the ConsensusDocs Contract Content Advisory Council (CCAC) drafted this new architect/engineer change order. The CCAC unanimously approved the new contract document and publication is set for October 14, 2024. The document will be available for most ConsensusDocs subscribers. The full, owner, design-professional, and short-form subscription packages will include the document. A subscription package can be purchased through ConsensusDocs here. The design professional change order helps owners of construction projects keep track of additional services their design professionals perform. The design professional must provide itemized labor breakdowns for each invoice. The new ConsensusDocs 242 has options for compensation to be actual hours at the billing rate or a lump sum. The new contract document form also has a table for the remaining project deliverables and their respective due dates. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Perlberg, ConsensusDocs Coalition
Mr. Perlberg may be contacted at bperlberg@ConsensusDocs.org

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES