SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

June 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
rime contracts typically contain a constructive change directive clause. A constructive change directive also goes by the acronym CCD (and for purposes of this article, such changes will be referred to as a CCD), however it can also be known as a Work Change Directive, Interim Directed Change, or Directed Change, depending on the type of contract beign utilized. An owner can order a CCD, versus issuing the contractor a formalized change order, as a mechanism to direct the prime contractor to perform work if there is a dispute as to contract amount, time, or scope. Just because an owner issues a CCD does not mean the owner is conceding that it owes the contractor a change order. Rather, the owner is ordering the CCD as a mechanism to keep the project moving forward notwithstanding a disagreement with the contractor as to the price or time impact. Standard form construction agreements such as the AIA, EJCDC, or ConsensusDocs, will have a standard provision dealing with change directives where the owner can order the contractor to proceed with work in the absence of a change order. In the federal government context, most construction contracts will contain a changes clause that authorizes the government to formally direct changes; and, there is authority for contractors to equitably pursue a constructive change based on certain directives or instructions issued by the government. Naturally, from the contractor’s perspective, this CCD provision is an important consideration as it could likely require the contractor to finance a change to the owner’s project, particularly if there is a scope dispute where the owner does not believe the contractor is entitled to any change order. 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

---

Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

December 17, 2015 — Laura C. Williams & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Daniel v. Ford Motor Company (filed 12/02/15), the Ninth Circuit resolved a federal and state court split on the issue of whether consumers can sustain a breach of implied warranty claim under California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (aka the “lemon law” statute) for “latent” defects discovered after the warranty period has expired. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit followed the holding in the California state appellate decision of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 (2009), which definitively determined there is nothing in California’s lemon law that requires a consumer to discover a latent defect during the duration of the warranty. The underlying class action lawsuit was brought in federal district court by purchasers of Ford Focus vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged Ford was aware of, but failed to disclose, a rear suspension defect in the Focus that resulted in premature tire wear which can cause decreased vehicle control, catastrophic tire failure and drifting on wet or snowy roads. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims including violations of California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Ford successfully moved for summary judgment on all claims prompting an appeal. Reprinted courtesy of Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

August 19, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Several months ago, I wrote about an escalator subcontractor that sued a general contractor, demanding payment for work completed based on approved shop drawings. The trial court agreed with the subcontractor, but the general contractor appealed. Ten months later, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the subcontractor had a duty to bring to the general contractor’s attention major discrepancies or errors they detect in the bid documents.

“The subcontractor failed to disclose ambiguities in the plans and must suffer the peril.”

Construction Difficulties The subcontractor installed 32 inch escalators throughout the project, but the plans called for 40 inch escalators. The general contractor and subcontractor could not reach agreement on how the dispute should be resolved. The subcontractor sued the general to get paid for replacing the escalators and the general sued to subcontractor for concessions it had to pay to the owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Insured's Remand of Bad Faith Action Granted

December 30, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court agreed remand of the insured's bad faith action to state court was appropriate. Kavanaugh v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138465 (C.D. Calif. Aug. 15, 2019). The insured sued National Union and Great American Insurance Company in state court for failing to defend him in three civil actions. In the alternative, claims were brought against Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc. and Chelsea Laing for professional negligence in failing to broker and procure adequate insurance for him. Laing acted as an "agent and/or broker and procured at least one of the policies at issue." Gallagher removed the action based on federal diversity jurisdiction. Although Laing was a citizen of California, Gallagher argued she was fraudulently joined and was a sham defendant, so her citizenship should be disregarded for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The insured moved to remand because Laing was a proper defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

April 05, 2021 — Neal I. Sklar & Joshua A. Morehouse - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
A recent case from the Central District of California reminds us that not all insurance policies are alike. Depending on the particular policy, losses from the COVID-19 outbreak could qualify as property damage and therefore could be recoverable under an all-risk insurance policy. COVID-19 has in many cases imposed significant costs on contractors, and in a host of ways. Contractors’ attempts to recover these costs from owners or insurers have at times been frustrated by contractual or policy language written after a lengthy time, during which the risk of a pandemic on the scale of COVID-19 was not as much of a concern as it is now. This has led contractors to explore new, often creative legal theories in their attempts to recover costs flowing from COVID-19. A recent Complaint filed in the Central District of California focuses on all-risk property insurance policies and the potential for contractors who have purchased such policies to classify contamination from COVID-19 as an insurable property loss. In AECOM v. Zurich Insurance Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00237-JAK-MRW (C.D. Cal), a contractor purchased “all-risk” property insurance from Zurich. This policy covered “economic losses from all risks not expressly excluded.” According to the Complaint, the presence of COVID-19 on its properties “physically alter[ed] air, airspace, and surfaces preventing… (the contractor) from using its properties for their intended purpose and function.” Reprinted courtesy of Neal I. Sklar, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joshua A. Morehouse, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Sklar may be contacted at nsklar@pecklaw.com Mr. Morehouse may be contacted at jmorehouse@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Reinsurer's Obligation to Provide Coverage Determined Under English Law

July 24, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Second Circuit turned to English law to determine the obligations of the reinsurer. Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. v. Equitas Ins. Ltd., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12461 (2nd Cir. May 22, 2023). Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSOP) provided an umbrella policy to a predecessor of Dole Food Company for a policy period from October 1968 to October er 1971. Equitas then reinsured part of ICSOP's exposure for the same three-year period. English law governed the reinsurance policy. In 2009, homeowners in Carson, California sued Dole for polluting their soil and groundwater. Dole and ICSOP settled these claims and allocated $20 million of the settlement liability to the ICSOP-Dole policy, even thought the homeowners' property damage and personal injuries continued to accrue after the ICSOP-Dole policy period ended. In doing so, the settlement followed The California law for allocation, known as the "all sums rule." This rule treated any insurer whose policy was in effect during any portion of the time during which the continuing harm occurred as jointly and severally liability for all property damages or personal injuries caused by a pollutant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

January 20, 2020 — Brian S. Wood & Alex Gorelik - ConsensusDocs
In April 2018, the Department of Justice announced a $5M settlement reached in its lawsuit against former professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong. While the fallout from Armstrong’s latently-admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) was well-publicized, including lost sponsorship deals, stripped Tour de France titles, and damage to his reputation, few were aware of Armstrong’s exposure to liability and criminal culpability for false claims against the government. The DOJ’s announcement reminded Armstrong and the rest of us of the golden rule of dealing with the government: honesty is the best policy. The corollary to that rule is that dishonesty is costly. Armstrong’s liability stemmed from false statements (denying the use of PEDs) he made, directly and through team members and other representatives, to U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) representatives and to the public. USPS was the primary sponsor of the grand tour cycling team led by Armstrong. The government alleged in the lawsuit that Armstrong’s false statements were made to induce USPS to renew and increase its sponsorship fees, in violation of the False Claims Act. The Statute Enacted in 1863, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) was originally aimed at stopping and deterring frauds perpetrated by contractors against the government during the Civil War. Congress amended the FCA in the years since its enactment, but its primary focus and target have remained those who present or directly induce the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The current FCA imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly presents “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal Government. A “claim” now includes direct requests to the Government for payment, as well as reimbursement requests made to the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs (such as Medicare). Thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have also enacted laws imposing penalties for false claims against state agencies and their subdivisions, with most of these laws modelled after the federal FCA. Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP and Alex Gorelik, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The contractor for the Manatee County Judicial Center will be replacing the defective stucco on the building, but they have stated that they intend to go after the subcontractor who initially installed the defective stucco. The contractor, Balfour Beatty LLC, has said they will pay for the repairs, but Steve Holt, an executive of the firm said that “we have initiated a lawsuit against the subcontractor, who we believe was substantially or completely responsible to recover those funds.” Mr. Holt named Commercial Plastering as the subcontractor responsible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---