SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Be Aware of Two New Statutes that Became Effective May 1, 2021

May 24, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
On May 1, 2021, two new statutes that passed in 2020 and that directly affect construction became effective. I’ve used the AGC-VA description of the bills and encourage you to read the statutes in full. Prevailing Wage Starting May 1, 2021, Virginia’s new prevailing wage statute takes effect. This statute requires any contractor bidding on state procurement jobs to pay prevailing wages for work completed on the project. Further, localities and some institutes of higher education have the option to require prevailing wages on jobs. This may have the effect of significantly raising the cost of these jobs and creating market incentives which make it very difficult for many contractors to bid on this type of work, and is consistent with work performed on VDOT and federal projects. The law further requires certified payroll for any prevailing wage job and the consequence for not following the statute includes debarment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

August 10, 2020 — Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine & Douglas M. Weck - White and Williams
The COVID-19 pandemic has generally put a stop to in-person depositions nationwide. Many litigants and their attorneys have also resisted attempts to proceed with remote video depositions, some holding out for the pandemic to subside and for the return of in-person business as usual while others are resistant to using new or unfamiliar virtual video technology. However, with COVID-19 cases still increasing nationwide, courts are beginning to mandate that depositions proceed remotely regardless of these apprehensions. It looks like remote video depositions may become part of a new set of best practices and perhaps mandatory in some circumstances for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, for example, has ordered that “[t]o the extent practicable . . . depositions should continue to be conducted remotely using necessary and available video technology.” The court has not explicitly mandated remote depositions, but has certainly encouraged trial courts to do so, indicating in orders litigants are “strongly encouraged” to depose witnesses remotely. Other jurisdictions, such as Philadelphia’s First Judicial District, have given trial court’s similar authority and flexibility. Recently, a trial court in Middlesex County, New Jersey granted a motion to compel a defense deposition of the plaintiff to proceed remotely, if not in person, over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel in a slip-and-fall case. This is one of the first such rulings in this area. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the remote deposition on the grounds that his client was elderly with a heavy accent, had no technology knowledge, and had no internet access. That would seem to be a pretty good argument that a remote deposition would be impracticable. However, the defendant bolstered their case with an offer to cover the cost of renting and delivering a remote deposition technology package to the plaintiff, complete with a tablet, phone, speaker, internet hotspot and remote training beforehand. Although the trial court acknowledged the plaintiff’s “significant hardship,” the court ordered that the deposition proceed remotely if not in person. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, Douglas Weck and Victor Zarrilli Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

October 02, 2015 — David A. Harris & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. (“Vita Planning”), the First Appellate District held California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 410.42 (“Section 410.42”) which prohibits an out-of-state contractor from requiring a California subcontractor to litigate disputes in a state other than California, applies not only to traditional “contractors” and “subcontractors” but also to design professionals and architects. In Vita Planning, a dispute arose when HKS, a Texas based architectural firm, refused to pay Vita Planning and Architecture (“Vita”), a landscape design firm, for work on a luxury hotel in Mammoth Lakes, California (“Project”). HKS contended it was not required to pay Vita until it was paid by the owner of the Project, and any claims regarding the work needed to be filed in Texas pursuant to a forum selection clause contained in a Prime Contract between HKS and the Owner. The forum clause was “incorporated by reference” into an unsigned “standard form” agreement between HKS and Vita. Despite the forum clause, Vita filed a Complaint against HKS in Marin County Superior Court. Reprinted courtesy of Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

August 30, 2021 — Joseph L. Cohen, W. Mason & Sean Milani-nia - ConsensusDocs
Consider the following scenario: the construction project is ready to proceed. The deal is done. The agreements have all been carefully crafted, with detailed provisions on insurance dedicated to reducing risk. Those provisions require the downstream trade contractors to furnish certificates of insurance listing the owner and prime contractor as additional insureds on the downstream contractor’s policies of insurance. A provision in the prime contract further requires the prime contractor to provide the owner with a certificate of insurance showing the owner as an additional insured on the prime contractor’s policies. At the ceremonial ground-breaking and right before work commences, the downstream contractors deliver their insurance certificates to the prime contractor and the prime contractor delivers its certificate plus the downstream certificates to the owner. From there, each insurance certificate will begin its final destination to the project file (either electronic or physical) where, with any luck, it will serve the regular stint before being discarded after the project’s successful conclusion. Otherwise, it will be retrieved under much stress and heavy scrutiny. The acceptance of insurance certificates is often viewed as standard industry practice, but should it be? The answer is a resounding “no.” There are many form development and construction agreements in circulation that deem insurance certificates to be acceptable evidence of insurance. But, a certificate of insurance should not be relied upon because it does not mean that insurance has been placed. You deserve real evidence that the requisite additional insured coverage is in place (in the form of a policy endorsement), and here is why. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild, W. Mason, Fox Rothschild and Sean Milani-nia, Fox Rothschild Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jlcohen@foxrothschild.com Mr. Mason may be contacted at wmason@foxrothschild.com Mr. Milani-nia may be contacted at smilani@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Courthouse Reporter Series: Nebraska Court of Appeals Vacates Arbitration Award for Misconduct

November 18, 2024 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
Vacating an arbitration award is often seen as an uphill battle. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “courts may only vacate an arbitrator’s decision ‘only in very unusual circumstances.’” Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 568 (2013). The Federal Arbitration Act provides limited grounds to seek the vacatur of an arbitration award. In Lund-Ross Constructors v. Duke of Omaga, LLC, ___ N.W.3d ___, 33 Neb.App.73, the Nebraska Court of Appeals found that an arbitrator’s conduct warranted the partial vacatur of the award, which granted relief to a subcontractor who filed a counterclaim after the arbitration hearing had closed. Lund-Ross contracted with Duke of Omaha to build an apartment complex in Omaha. Lund-Ross, in turn, sub-contracted with A Raymond Plumbing. Following completion of the building, Owner withheld payment from Lund-Ross, who in turn, withheld payment from Raymond. Both Lund-Ross and Raymond filed mechanics liens and initiated suits; Raymond’s suit ultimately was dismissed for want of prosecution. Lund-Ross proceeded to arbitration with Owner, naming Raymond as a respondent. Raymond did not participate in the arbitration as a claimant at the time of the hearing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bwitry@lauriebrennan.com

---

Resilience: Transforming the Energy Sector – Navigating Land Issues in Solar and Storage Projects | Episode 3 (11.14.24)

December 17, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In the latest episode of the Resilience podcast, colleague Shellka Arora-Cox and Laura Pagliarulo, CEO and founder of SolaREIT, get down to the nitty-gritty in a discussion of the interplay of solar power capacity, generation and land use. (Editor’s note: The following transcript has been edited for clarity.) Welcome to Resilience, the vodcast where we talk about the most pressing challenges and the biggest opportunities in the energy sector. I’m your host, Shellka Arora-Cox, a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. I’m thrilled to have Laura Pagliarulo, the CEO and founder of SolaREIT, with me today. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---

Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

February 05, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc. (No. B247080, filed 1/30/2015) the Court of Appeal, Second District, held that a trial judge’s disclosure to the panel of prospective jurors of plaintiff’s status as an undocumented alien was prejudicial and grounds for a new trial. Plaintiff, Wilfredo Velasquez, brought suit against defendant, Centrome, Inc., alleging personal injuries related to on-the-job exposure to diacetyl, which was purportedly distributed by Centrome. Prior to trial, numerous motions in limine were filed with the trial court including a motion brought by Plaintiff to preclude Centrome from referring to or making any comments about Mr. Velasquez’s citizenship or immigration status. Plaintiff contended the information was not relevant (as no loss of earnings claim was asserted), and was substantially more prejudicial than probative. Defendant opposed the Motion arguing the information was relevant for the limited purpose of allowing expert testimony about Mr. Velasquez’s inability as an undocumented alien to participate in a lung transplant he claimed was needed. The Court deferred ruling on the motion. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures

November 15, 2021 — Karen C. Bennett - Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (October 15, 2021) - The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has requested comments, by November 22, 2021, on proposed revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The proposal is Phase I in a two-phased approach that will eventually undo a final rule, effective September 2020, that updated NEPA regulations to reflect decades of agency experience and caselaw interpreting the 1969 Act. Phase I proposes to reinstitute 1978 definitions for key terms used to determine the scope of review and the range of alternatives required when undertaking any major federal action. Phase II is expected to be an extensive rewrite of the 2020 regulations to incorporate climate change and environmental justice objectives. Businesses with projects, now or in the future, that require federal authorizations will need to pay close attention to these regulatory revisions. The 2020 update rule intended to scale back the time and cost of producing NEPA analyses by focusing agency resources on evaluating effects that are within the agency’s ability to control and studying only those alternatives that would meet the project purpose. CEQ’s proposal eliminates these efficiencies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com

---