SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.

October 24, 2021 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
In Serpanok Construction, Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC, Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals decided an issue of first impression in Washington—whether a guarantor of a partially secured debt remains liable until the last dollar of the entire debt is paid off. After examining cases from other jurisdictions, the court held that that a guarantor is liable until the underlying debt is paid in full unless the agreement contains an express pay down provision. A pay down provision sets forth the guarantor’s right to reduce its obligation to the extent of any payment toward the debt, and it establishes that the guaranty applies only until an amount equivalent to the guaranteed amount is paid off. The Serpanok decision addressed several other issues, but the published portion of this part-published case focused on whether an entity involved in a real estate development, Point Ruston LLC, was discharged from its guaranty obligation following a foreclosure sale where the proceeds did not cover the entire debt owed to a subcontractor. Point Ruston LLC, Point Ruston Phase II LLC (“Phase II”), and Century Condominiums (“Century”) were affiliated entities (collectively “Point Ruston parties”) that constructed retail and residential structures on a site in Point Ruston. Serpanok Construction Inc. (“Serpanok”) entered into subcontract agreements with Phase II and Century to perform concrete and steel work on a parking garage and movie theater for the project. Point Ruston LLC was not a party to either subcontract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

---

Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

December 22, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Every now and then I come across an opinion that addresses good-to-know legal issues as a corollary of strategic litigation decisions that are questionable and/or creative. An opinion out of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Rock Roofing, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2019 WL 4418918 (D. New Mexico 2019), is such an opinion. In Rock Roofing, an owner hired a contractor to construct apartments. The contractor furnished a payment bond. The contractor, in the performance of its work, hired a roofing subcontractor. A dispute arose under the subcontract and the roofer recorded a construction lien against the project. The contractor, per New Mexico law, obtained a bond to release the roofer’s construction lien from the project (real property). The roofer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the payment bond surety claiming it is entitled to: (1) collect on the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond (?!?) and (2) foreclose its construction lien against the lien release bond furnished per New Mexico law. Count I – Miller Act Payment Bond Claiming the payment bond issued by the contractor is a Miller Act payment bond is a head scratcher. This claim was dismissed with prejudice upon the surety’s motion to dismiss. This was an easy call. 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

---

Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

August 20, 2018 — Jacob Goodelman - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Danny the Developer wishes to build Greenacre, a large residential and retail condominium complex in downtown Boston. However, Danny’s lender – the Bank of Barbara – will not lend Danny the money to develop the complex unless Danny’s architect signs a lender certificate. Danny presents the lender certificate to Allie the Architect, the certificate is relatively short and simple, it states:

“Allie the Architect prepared plans and specifications relating to Greenacre. Allie the Architect certifies that the plans are in accordance with all applicable zoning, building, housing and other laws, ordinances, regulations including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, and the Americans with Disability Act. The Plans do not encroach over, across or upon any such easements, rights-of-way, or subsurface rights and the like. Allie further certifies that the load bearing capacity of the soil is adequate to support the plans. The Bank of Barbara shall rely upon Allie the Architects certification in loaning money to Danny the Developer for Greenacre.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jacob Goodelman, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Goodelman may be contacted at jgoodelman@grsm.com

---

Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

October 08, 2014 — Chris Christoff – Bloomberg
Billionaire Dan Gilbert envisions a vibrant and shiny downtown Detroit, where he owns a casino and about 60 buildings. His urban Eden doesn’t include a jail with 2,000 criminals. Gilbert is resisting county officials’ plans to restart construction on a half-finished jail mired in cost overruns, criminal investigations and debt. The project, which the Wayne County Commission may revive tomorrow, would replace a complex on land that Gilbert, the 52-year-old founder and chairman of Detroit-based Quicken Loans Inc., offered to buy for $50 million to build a hotel, housing and stores. The dispute over the jail, which has sat unfinished for 16 months, pits one of Detroit’s most prominent boosters against a county government over how to reinvigorate the city’s heart. Gilbert, whose company is the nation’s largest online retail mortgage lender, has invested $1.3 billion there, betting on the former auto-manufacturing capital’s resurgence after decades of decline that pushed it into a record $18 billion municipal bankruptcy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Christoff, Bloomberg
Mr. Christoff may be contacted at cchristoff@bloomberg.net

---

Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor

August 17, 2017 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
AB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” – defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general contractor’s contract with the project owner. Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated damages from the general contractor. AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action. It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability. Impact AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor. As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily regulated as public works. CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

April 11, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case came out in favor of an insured and against a first-party property insurer in the triggering of a statutory bad faith action. Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal in Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D679a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) held that if an insurer pays a claim after the 60-day notice to cure period provided by Florida Statute s. 624.155(3), this “constitutes a determination of an insurer’s liability for coverage and extent of damages under section 624.155(1)(b) even when there is no underlying action.” 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

---

What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims

October 28, 2024 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
If a property owner claims there is a construction defect, that not only brings the project’s integrity into question but also your business’s reputation. So, how can you take steps to prevent these claims from causing such damage? Here are three things to know before beginning a project to effectively protect it and manage construction defect claims. 1. Documentation is key California and Los Angeles County require certain permits and documents in order for a construction project to move forward. Los Angeles County will also conduct plan checks to ensure everything is up to code. Detailed documentation will be important while making your plans. However, keeping notes throughout every step of the project will also be essential. Documenting all aspects of the project helps you:

• Stay updated and aware of the project’s progress
• Proactively catch and handle issues that could result in disputes
• Create a record of evidence that can help manage defect claims

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

---

Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

March 15, 2021 — Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation Specialist
Many subrogation claims involving fire losses rely heavily on expert testimony. Expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it is both relevant and reliable. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), whose standard has been incorporated into Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Supreme Court instructed federal trial courts to act as a “gatekeeper” of expert testimony, giving them the power to exclude expert testimony that is not supported by sufficient evidence. In Maria Fernanda Elosu and Robert Luis Brace v. Middlefork Ranch Incorporated, Civil Case No. 1:19-cv-00267-DCN, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14449 (D. Idaho Jan. 22, 2021) (Brace), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho exercised its gatekeeper role when it granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to exclude expert testimony pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Brace, involved a fire at a vacation cabin in McCall, Idaho. The cabin, owned by Maria Elosu (Elosu) and Robert Brace (Brace and collectively with Elosu, Plaintiffs) was part of a homeowner’s association called Middlefork Ranch, Incorporated (MFR). The cabin had a “wrap around” deck with a propane-fired refrigerator on the north side. On the day before the fire, Brace stained the deck using an oil-based stain. That night, Elosu smoked cigarettes on the deck. The next morning, Plaintiffs used rags to clean up excess oil from the deck and an MFR employee changed the propane on the refrigerator and relit the pilot light. At 4:00 p.m., a fire started in or around the cabin while no one was home. The fire was discovered by a group of contractors who testified that the fire was isolated to the east side of the cabin when they first arrived. Importantly, one witness testified that there was no fire and no flames around the propane-fired refrigerator. The fire destroyed the cabin and the contents within. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

---