Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

December 18, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The project to install a suicide-deterrence net and perform other upgrades on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco now is expected to complete five years late and cost more than double the original contract price, its contractors say. The joint venture leading the project filed a breach-of-contract complaint against the agency that manages the bridge seeking $195 million in damages, while the agency counters that delays were caused by changes in the contractor’s ownership. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

August 10, 2020 — Hal J. Perloff - Construction Executive
We’ve all heard the expression that those who deal with the government must turn square corners. This is because the government has a broad array of tools at its disposal to motivate, coax and cajole contractors and federal grant recipients to play by the rules. Those tools include harsh measures such as criminal prosecution and civil false claims act enforcement on the one hand and poor CPARS ratings on the other. A seemingly less severe administrative option available to the government is suspension and debarment. However, any entity that has been suspended or debarred knows that these measures can prove harsh and disruptive. While the numbers of suspensions and debarments have declined from the all-time high in 2011, there is still significant activity. In its FY 2018 report, the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee reported 2444 referrals, 480 suspensions, 1542 proposed debarments and 1334 debarments. The number of referrals for suspension and debarment in FY 2018 is almost exactly the same as the number of GAO bid protests filed that year. WHAT IS SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT? Suspension and debarment are the government’s tools to avoid entities it views as a high risk for poor performance, fraud, waste and abuse. Suspension and debarment preclude a business entity or individual from contracting with the government or from receiving grants, loans, loan guarantees or other forms of assistance from the government. A suspension is a temporary exclusion when the government determines immediate action is necessary pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceeding. A debarment is an exclusion for a defined, reasonable period of time—often three years. Reprinted courtesy of Hal J. Perloff, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Perloff may be contacted at hal.perloff@huschblackwell.com

Colorado “occurrence”

January 06, 2012 — CDCoverage.com

In Greystone Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co., No. 09-1412 (10th Cir. November 1, 2011), general contractors Greystone and Branan were each sued by purchases of homes built by each alleging defective construction performed by subcontractors. CGL insurer American Family Mutual Insurance Company defended both Greystone and Brannon while co-insurer National Fire & Marine Insurance Company denied a defense. Greystone, Branan, and American Family sued National Fire for contribution towards defense costs. The federal district trial court entered summary judgment for National Fire.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

October 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond. A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA. In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance. 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

What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

February 28, 2018 — Ben Reeves – Real Estate Litigation blog / Snell & Wilmer
Introduction Arizona’s trustee’s sale statutory scheme provides for the waiver of all defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale that: (i) are not raised prior to the sale, and (ii) do not result in an injunction against the sale going forward. See A.R.S. § 33-811(C). In other words, if you have an objection to a trustee’s sale, you must seek and obtain an injunction prior to the sale or your objection will be waived. Arizona’s Court of Appeals previously held that notwithstanding this statutory waiver, “common law” defenses to repayment of the debt survive a non-judicial foreclosure even in the absence of an injunction prior to the sale. See Morgan AZ Financial, L.L.C. v. Gotses, 235 Ariz. 21, 326 P.3d 288 (Ct. App. 2014). Our analysis of the Morgan decision can be found here. In Zubia v. Shapiro, 243 Ariz. 412, 408 P.3d 1248 (2018), the Arizona Supreme Court revisited the issue of what claims survive a trustee’s sale, and clarified that if a person fails to enjoin a trustee’s sale prior to its occurrence, then that person waives any and all damages claims dependent upon a trustee’s sale. That person does not, however, waive damages claims that are independent of the sale. Thus, determining what types of claims are “dependent” versus “independent” of a trustee’s sale is of critical importance to lenders and borrowers alike. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract

May 10, 2022 — Ted Senet & Christopher Trembley - Gibbs Giden
California local public agencies and their contractors should take note of a recent appellate decision pertaining to late progress payments on public works projects. In Clark Bros., Inc. v. North Edwards Water Dist., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 331, filed on April 22, 2022, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that a local agency’s late progress payments to a general contractor did not constitute breach of contract under the prompt payment penalty statute, Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Notwithstanding this holding, the contractor recovered damages, interest, fees, and costs in excess of its contract amount. In 2013, the North Edwards Water District awarded a $6.2 million contract to Clark Bros., Inc. to construct a water treatment facility. The District’s water contained excessive levels of arsenic, and the project was sponsored by the State of California with funds earmarked to provide safe drinking water. The State agreed to disburse funds to the District during construction upon the State’s review and approval of the contractor’s progress payment applications. The contract required completion of the work within one year following the District’s issuance of a notice to proceed to the contractor. As a result of factors arguably outside the control of the contractor, including unforeseen site conditions and the failure of the District’s equipment supplier to meet delivery deadlines, the project was significantly delayed beyond the deadline for completion. The District nonetheless terminated the contractor, which in turn filed suit against the District and the State. The contractor asserted claims for breach of contract, including breach of contract for the District’s failure to pay the contractor’s progress payment applications within the time specified under Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Subsection (b) of the statute provides:

Any local agency which fails to make any progress payment within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from a contractor on a construction contract shall pay interest to the contractor equivalent to the legal rate set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 685.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Reprinted courtesy of Ted Senet, Gibbs Giden and Christopher Trembley, Gibbs Giden Mr. Senet may be contacted at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com Mr. Trembley may be contacted at Ctrembley@gibbsgiden.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Chambers USA Names Peckar & Abramson to Band 1 Level in Construction Law; 29 P&A Lawyers Recognized as Leading Attorneys; Six Regions and Government Contracts Practice Recognized

July 08, 2024 — Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A) is pleased to announce that Chambers USA has recognized the firm at the Band 1 level nationwide in Construction Law. P&A stands alone in being named a Band 1 firm in Construction Law nationally and has been named in the position every year since Chambers USA began awarding the recognition. The firm was also recognized nationally in Government Contracts: Highly Regarded. P&A’s offices in New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Texas were ranked Band 1 in Construction Law, and the Firm’s California, Illinois, and Washington, DC practices were also highly rated. Additionally, 29 of P&A’s construction lawyers were named leading construction lawyers in their respective jurisdictions – more than any other construction law practice in the country. As demonstrated by its consistent Chambers USA Rankings, Peckar & Abramson has earned a national reputation for exceptional legal advocacy, representing construction industry members domestically and internationally. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

Insurer's Denial of Coverage to Additional Insured Constitutes Bad Faith

May 21, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's unreasonable denial of a defense and indemnity to a lessor/additional insured was found to be in bad faith. Seaway Props. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55998 (W.D. Wash. April 22, 2014). Seaway leased restaurant space to Ciao Bella Food, LLC. In January 10, 2010, the underlying plaintiff was on her way to the restaurant when she attempted to step down from a concrete platform between the building parking lot and the entrance to the restaurant. Seaway's lease gave Ciao Bella the right to use the common areas, including the parking lot, but did not grant Ciao Bella exclusive control over the common areas. The plaintiff suffered injuries and claimed both Ciao Bella and Seaway were liable. Seaway's lease required Ciao Bella to maintain a CGL policy and to name Seaway as an additional insured. Ciao Bella did so by securing a policy with Fireman's Fund. Fireman's Fund had notice of the plaintiff's claim by November 2010. Seaway demanded in March 2012 that Fireman's Fund indemnify and defend it. In September 2012, two years after it first learned of the plaintiff's injury, Fireman's Fund denied coverage, asserting that Seaway was not an insured under the policy. 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