Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill: Overview of Key Provisions

January 04, 2021 — White and Williams LLP
In a much needed holiday gift for businesses and individuals who continue to be affected by COVID-19, Congress finally approved a $900 billion aid package follow-up to the CARES Act (the Winter Covid-19 Relief Bill), the several trillion dollar stimulus that was enacted early in the pandemic. The bill, part of the larger annual spending bill, will hopefully be signed into law by President Trump in the coming days although the President has indicated his disappointment about the small amount of direct relief to individuals included in the bill. The bill was passed by both houses of Congress by a veto proof majority and is expected to become law whether or not the President chooses to exercise his veto power. White and Williams has and will continue to provide more detailed updates on important components of the legislation, some of which address matters beyond COVID-19-related relief and support, including a new Paycheck Protection Program and tax deductibility of expenses paid for with PPP funds, extension and expansion of the employee retention tax credit, direct payments to individuals, additional unemployment assistance, restrictions on surprise medical billing, rental assistance and extension of the eviction moratorium, education funding, vaccine distribution, testing and tracing, and other healthcare funding. In the meantime, here is a brief overview of several pieces of the legislation: Paycheck Protection Program The Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill provides for $284 billion of funding for a new round of the popular Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which was established by the CARES Act and allowed borrowers to receive forgivable loans to be used to retain employees and cover certain other basic operating expenses. New and existing businesses may participate in the program. However, eligibility for PPP Part II is more restrictive and targeted then the original PPP. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Insured's Lack of Knowledge of Tenant's Growing Marijuana Means Coverage Afforded for Fire Loss

August 17, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer regarding a claim for fire loss. Mosley v. Pacific Sec. Ins, Co., 2020 Cal. App LEXIS (Cal. Ct. App, May 26, 2020). The Mosleys rented their property to Pedro Lopez. Six months later, the property was damaged by fire. Lopez had tapped a main power line into the attic to power his energy-intensive marijuana growing operation. The illegal power line caused the fire. Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (PSIC) insured the property under an HO-3 Standard Homeowners policy. Paragraph E of the policy provided,

The growing of plants; or
The manufacture, production, operation or processing of chemical, biological, animal or plant materials.

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

Opoplan Introduces Generative AI Tools for Home-Building

February 06, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Opoplan introduces its suite of generative AI architectural tools for builders and real estate brokers. The initiative intends to bridge the technological gap in custom home planning and building. The tools introduced by the company also aim to reduce the overdependence on manual efforts and limited design options when it comes to lot analysis, design briefing, design planning, and many other pre-build tasks. Through its AI-powered tools, Opoplan assists builders and home designers in saving time, money, and energy and more successfully close contracts, managing plans, and delivering single-family homes. A series of tools for the home-building industry Opoplan is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, with a new US office in Raleigh, North Carolina, and was established in 2019. They provide pre-build house planning and design tools for custom builders, real estate brokers, and house designers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Know and Meet Your Notice Requirements or Lose Your Payment Bond Claims

May 17, 2021 — Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Time is of the essence in the construction industry, and failing to provide timely notice of your payment bond claim can end your chance of recovery. Payment bonds guarantee payment for the subcontractors and suppliers who provide labor or materials on covered construction projects. Federal and state statutes governing payment bonds on public projects and the specific terms of non-statutory, private payment bonds have strict notice and timing requirements. Claimants who fail to provide timely notice can forfeit their chance of recovery. This article provides a brief overview of the notice requirements for payment bond claims – who has to give notice, what notice is required, and when you have to give notice. Payment bond protection is a frequent feature in construction. Payment bonds are required on most federal construction projects of over $100,000 under the federal Miller Act. Similar state statutes, typically referred to as “Little Miller Acts,” also require payment bonds on most state and local construction projects. Owners on private projects may require their general contractor to provide a payment bond to protect the property from liens. Finally, general contractors may also require subcontractors to provide payment bonds on public or private projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com

A Quick Checklist for Subcontractors

January 26, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After the last two weeks’ analyses of a couple of big construction decisions that came out recently, I thought I’d keep this week’s post practical and short for those that are not construction lawyers. So without further ado, here is a short checklist of the top things (aside from calling their local experienced construction attorney) a construction subcontractor should do or look for when reviewing a construction contract from a general contractor (and for a couple of these that a general contractor can look for in its prime contract).

ALWAYS get a copy of the Prime Contract between the Owner and the General Contractor. This contract will contain terms that will “flow down” to you through the incorporation clause that almost every subcontract contains. You can’t do much to change these terms, but you will need to know them as the job progresses.
READ every provision of the subcontract. I know this sounds simple, but not all subcontracts hide the red flags in the same places. Remember the details of a subcontract can sink you later if you aren’t prepared.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

October 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit held there is a duty to defend not only a PRP letter issued by the EPA, but also a section 104 (e) letter. Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2013). The insured received two letters from the EPA notifying it of potential liability under CERCLA for environmental contamination of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The first letter was received in January 2008, and stated that the EPA sought the insured's cooperation in its investigation of the release of hazardous substances at the site. The letter enclosed an extensive, 82-question "Information Request" seeking information about the insured's current and former activities at the site. The letter informed the insured that its voluntary cooperation was sought, but compliance with the Information Request was required by law and failure to respond could result in an enforcement action and civil penalties of $32,500 per day. The insured tendered the 104 (e) letter to St. Paul and requested a defense and indemnity pursuant to the CGL policy. St. Paul declined to provide a defense because the letter did not constitute a "suit," which was required by the policy to trigger the duty to defend. The second letter from the EPA, received in November 2009, was entitled "General Notice Letter for the Portland Superfund Site" and notified the insured that it was a "potentially responsible party ("PRP"). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

June 11, 2014 — Amy Thomson – Bloomberg
Come home to a hot iron and smoldering clothes this afternoon? Soon, it may not be a sign of forgetfulness, but rather evidence that you’ve been hacked. In coming years, your smartphone will be able to lock your house, turn on the air conditioning, check whether the milk is out of date, or even heat up your iron. Great news, except that all that convenience could also let criminals open your doors, spy on your family or drive your connected car to their lair. “As these technologies become more sophisticated, it opens up a broader spectrum of threats,” said Gunter Ollmann, chief technology officer of IOActive, a tech security firm in Seattle. A world of connected devices makes it possible “for the bad guys to have permanent entry into your household.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amy Thomson, Bloomberg
Ms. Thomson may be contacted at athomson6@bloomberg.net

BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy

April 01, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court determined that BP was not an additional insured under Transocean's liability policy and had no coverage under the policy for the deaths caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon. In re Horizon, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 141 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015). We have previously posted on this case in the federal courts here and here. Transocean owned the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit operating in the Gulf of Mexico pursuant to a contract with BP. After an explosion in April 2010, the rig caught fire, killing eleven crew members. Both Transocean and BP sought coverage under Transocean's primary and excess policies. Although they did not dispute that BP was an additional insured, Transocean and its insurers argued that BP was not entitled to coverage for pollution-related liabilities arising from subsurface oil releases in connection with the Deepwater Horizon accident. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES