Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

April 25, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The city of El Paso has recently increased surety bonds required of contractors from $10,000 to $50,000, according to the El Paso Times. Proponents of the increase believe it was necessary to protect homeowners from fly-by-night builders, while opponents argue that the increase will have an adverse effect on an industry in that is already suffering due to the economic slowdown.

Arguments for and against the increase have been flooding the blogosphere with their views. Christian Dorobantescu on the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog claims that “only about 15% of the city’s 2,500 contractors had been able to secure a higher bond to remain eligible for work after the new requirements were announced.” However, insurance companies have a different take. “From a surety broker standpoint, most contractors will be able qualify for the bond; some will just have to pay higher premium rates to obtain it,” a recent post on the Surety1 blog argues.

While the increased bond may help homeowners deal with construction defect claims, it is not clear what effect it will have on builders in El Paso.

S&P Suspended and Fined $80 Million in SEC, State Mortgage Bond Cases

January 21, 2015 — Keri Geiger and Matt Robinson – Bloomberg
Standard & Poor’s (MHFI) agreed to be suspended from rating the biggest part of the commercial-mortgage bond market and pay almost $80 million to state and federal authorities over claims it bent criteria to win business. S&P misled investors about the methodology it used in 2011 to rate eight commercial-mortgage backed securities, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement today. The company will pay about $58 million to the SEC and an additional $19 million to attorneys general for New York and Massachusetts to settle the matter. Ms. Geiger may be contacted at kgeiger4@bloomberg.net; Mr. Robinson may be contacted at mrobinson55@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Keri Geiger and Matt Robinson, Bloomberg

Design Immunity Defense Gets Special Treatment on Summary Judgment

March 29, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This may be one that is more for the lawyers than it is for the contractors or owners. If you’ve ever filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication you know the standard is clear. You’re going to lose if the court finds a disputed issue of material fact. In other words, since summary judgment or summary adjudication is such an extreme remedy – you win without having to go to trial after all – the standard is pretty high. Thus, if there’s a dispute as to a material fact (was the light green or was it red?) it’s enough that the court will deny your motion. That is, unless you’re seeking summary judgment or adjudication on a design immunity defense as the next case, Menges v. Department of Transportation, Case No. G057643 (December 24, 2020), reveals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

If You Can’t Dazzle Em’ With Brilliance, Baffle Em’ With BS: Apprentices on Public Works Projects

October 24, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The “Big Four” when it comes to public works contracting on state and local projects in California are:

Registration with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”);
Payment of prevailing of wages and maintenance and submission of certified payroll;
Compliance with the “skilled and trained workforce” requirements on certain projects; and
Hiring apprentices on state and local public works projects with a value of $30,000 or more.

The next case, GRFCO, Inc. v. Superior Court, 89 Cal.App.5th 1295 (2023), discusses the last of these requirements. The case also reminded me of W.C. Field’s old saying – “If you can’t dazzle em’ with brilliance, baffle em’ with bullshit” – and which ended with expected results. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

July 19, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently held that the construction of a movie theater, which was performed in furtherance of a city’s redevelopment agenda, constitutes a “public work” within the meaning of California’s prevailing wage law. Cinema West, LLC v. Christine Baker, No. A144265, (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2017). Like many California cities, the City of Hesperia (the “City”) endeavored to revitalize its downtown. In furtherance of this goal, the City acquired vacant property in its downtown with the hope of turning it into a new city hall, a public library, and “complimentary retail, restaurant, and entertainment establishments.” After completing construction of the civic buildings, the City entered into discussions with Cinema West, LLC (“Cinema West”) for the construction of a “state-of-the-art cinema experience.” Under the agreement with the City, Cinema West agreed to purchase the property from the City at fair market value, obtain financing for the construction costs, and build and maintain the movie theater. The City, on the other hand, agreed to provide Cinema West with an interest-bearing loan forgivable over ten years, and to construct an adjacent parking lot “for use by Cinema West... as a parking lot for the movie theater.” The City, moreover, agreed to issue Cinema West a one-time payment as consideration for the operating covenant. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court

July 31, 2024 — Erica Whaley - Construction Law Zone
Earlier this year, the Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts hired Robinson+Cole attorney Joseph Barra to submit an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for consideration in the appeal pending before it in Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co., Inc. In its June 17, 2024 decision in that case, the Court interpreted the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act, which applies to private construction projects and “requires that parties to a construction contract approve or reject payment within” an allotted time period and in compliance with certain procedures else such payments will be deemed approved. Two years ago, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, decided that an owner who fails to timely advise its general contractor of the reasons as to why it was withholding payment, coupled with failure to certify that such funds are being withheld in good faith, violates the Prompt Pay Act and makes the owner liable for funds owed.[1] However, the Tocci Building Court left open the question of whether one who violates the Prompt Pay Act forfeits its substantive defenses to non-payment, such as fraud, defective work, or breach of material obligation of the contract. The facts of Business Interiors involve a general contractor, Graycor, which subcontracted Business Interiors to perform certain flooring work for a movie theatre in Boston’s North End. When Graycor failed to formally approve, reject, or certify, in good faith, its withholding of payment of three of Business Interiors’ applications for payment as prescribed by the Prompt Pay Act, Business Interiors brought suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Business Interiors then moved for summary judgement arguing that Graycor’s failure to comply with the Act rendered it liable for the unpaid invoices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robinson + Cole

Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
If Nevada Senate Republicans get there way, changes are afoot for construction defect law in Nevada. Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson has introduced a bill that, according to the Las Vegas Sun, “redefines what constitutes a construction defect, reduces the time in which lawsuits can be filed, and removed automatic awarding of attorney fees.” Roberson notes that over the last six years, construction defect claims have more than tripled. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes

July 05, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
A common provision often deleted from the standard form AIA documents is the provision in the AIA A201 General Conditions requiring an Initial Decision Maker (IDM) for claims between the contractor and owner. In the A201, the contracting parties have the option of naming their own IDM for the project. If an IDM is not selected (which is typically the case) the architect serves this role by default. While it is in all parties’ best interests to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently, using the architect as the IDM is not the best way to achieve such a resolution. Several reasons work against using the architect as the IDM. Contractors typically don’t trust architects to be impartial in resolving disputes because the architect is paid by the owner. Most architects don’t have the temperament or any training to facilitate dispute resolution. An architect’s “initial decision” could even drive the parties further apart and lead to further issues later in the project. The architect may also be perceived to be part of the problem that led to the dispute in the first place. Also, many architects simply prefer to avoid serving the thankless role of an IDM altogether. Lastly, inserting the architect into the dispute resolution process as a required IDM adds an additional unnecessary step to dispute resolution, which can delay the overall procedure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES