Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

November 26, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
I’ve discussed the economic loss rule here at Musings on several occasions. The economic loss rule basically states that where one party assumes a duty based in contract or agreement, the Virginia courts will not allow a claim for breach of that duty to go forward as anything but a contract claim. This doctrine makes fraud claims nearly, though not absolutely, impossible to maintain in a construction context. In a majority of instances, fraud and construction contracts are very much like oil and water, leaving parties to fight it out over the terms of a particular contract despite actions by one party or the other that non-lawyers would clearly see as fraud. However, a recent case decided by the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least some hope to those who are seemingly fooled into entering a contract that they would not other wise have entered into. In Philip Abi-Najm, et. al, v Concord Condominium, LLC, several condominium purchasers sued Concord under for breach of contract, breach of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and for fraud in the inducement based upon flooring that Concord installed that was far from the quality stated in the purchase contract. Based upon these facts, the Court looked at two questions: 1. Did a statement in the contract between Concord and the condo buyers create a situation in which the merger doctrine barred the breach of contract claim, and 2. Did the economic loss rule bar the VCPA and fraud claims? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

June 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's holding that the insurer had no duty to defend claims arising out of the insureds' installation of defective steel framing in an apartment building. Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. B245961(Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2014) [decision here]. Regional Steel was a subcontractor for providing reinforced steel to the columns, walls, and floors of an apartment building under construction. Regional used 90 degree and 135 degree seismic hooks as approved by the general contractor, JSM Construction, Inc. The City building inspector issued a correction notice, however, requiring the exclusive use of the 135 degree hooks. Levels one through three had defective tie hooks and required repair. JSM refused to pay Regional's invoices and withheld $545,000. JSM had to make repairs that required opening up numerous locations in the concrete walls, welding reinforcements to the steel placed by Regional, and otherwise strengthening the inadequate installation. Regional sued JSM for the withheld payment. JSM cross-claimed, asserting breach of contract and breach of express and implied warranties. 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

Lewis Brisbois’ Houston Office Selected as a 2020 Top Workplace by the Houston Chronicle

December 21, 2020 — David Oubre - Lewis Brisbois
Lewis Brisbois’ Houston office was recently selected for inclusion in the Houston Chronicle’s 2020 Top Workplaces section. To determine the recipients of this honor, the publication surveyed more than 37,000 Houston-area employees regarding their organization’s leadership, cooperation, communication, work-life balance, pay, and benefits. Based upon the employees’ feedback, the publication selected its Top Workplaces winners and announced them during a virtual awards ceremony in November. Houston Office Administrator Kristi Kraeger expressed excitement concerning this honor, explaining, “In the two years I have been with Lewis Brisbois, we have more than doubled in size. We have created a friendly, professional, team-oriented environment, and we strive to provide growth and opportunity to our employees.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Oubre, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Oubre may be contacted at David.Oubre@lewisbrisbois.com

Because I Haven’t Mentioned Mediation Lately. . .

November 23, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Any regular reader of Construction Law Musings knows that I am both a great believer in mediation and a certified Virginia mediator. After the last few weeks in which I participated in mediation by Zoom, a Judicial Settlement Conference (read, court-ordered mediation with a retired judge), and will be participating in another mediation in person next week, it seems as if others believe in the process as well. After all of this mediation activity, all of which related to construction project-related disputes, I am more convinced than ever that almost every construction case should at least be submitted for mediation. The list below gives my reasons for saying this:

The parties are in control. In litigation or arbitration, the parties present their evidence to a third party or parties with no familiarity with the “boots on the ground” reality of the construction project at issue. This third party gives a cold review of what evidence court rules allow them to consider and gives a final ruling that one side “wins” and the other side “loses.” This decision has monetary consequences for the losing party, not the least of which is a large attorney fee bill after potentially several years of legal wrangling. With mediation, those closest to the project, the parties, can say what they want, present what they feel to be the best case, and work for a solution. The solution can be flexible and allow the two sides to reach a business decision that is at least better than a large monetary judgment against one of the parties that is only further enforceable in court.

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

Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims

August 14, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Last week, I discussed a case (here) that involved a federal district court (trial court) denying a motion to dismiss on a negligent supervision claim. In this same case, the plaintiff, a subcontractor/fabricator, also sued the defendants–parent company of a prime contractor and two entities the prime contractor hired to inspect the subcontractor’s fabricated units–for tortious interference of the subcontractor’s contract with the prime contractor. The defendants moved to dismiss this tortious interference claim which gave rise to another interesting discussion by the trial court relating to the burden to plead and prove tortious interference claims. This discussion is worthy to remember the next time you not only want to plead a tortious interference claim, but want to be in a position to put on evidence to prove the claim at trial.

“Under Florida law, the elements of a tortious-interference-with-contract claim are: ‘(1) the existence of a contract, (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the contract, (3) the defendant’s intentional procurement of the contract’s breach, (4) absence of any justification or privilege, and (5) damages resulting from the breach.’” Bautech USA, Inc. v. Resolve Equipment, 2023 WL 4186395 (S.D.Fla. 2023) (citation omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Update to Washington State Covid-19 Guidance

November 23, 2020 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Yesterday, November 15, 2020, Governor Inslee announced modifications to the current COVID-19 restrictions in response to the current rise in cases across Washington State. There are no additional restrictions on construction at this time. However, during the Governor’s press conference yesterday, he did indicate that positive cases were increasing on construction sites, and that they would be tracking the statistics over the next 2 – 3 weeks – to see if additional restrictions would be necessary for construction sites in the future. Additionally, the construction industry group is meeting with the Governor’s office today, November 16, 2020, and we will keep you informed of any changes as a result of that meeting. Unless otherwise specifically noted, the modifications take effect at 12:01 a.m., Tuesday, November 17, 2020. All modifications to existing prohibitions set forth herein shall expire at 11:59 p.m., Monday, December 14, 2020, unless otherwise extended. If an activity is not listed below, currently existing guidance shall continue to apply. If current guidance is more restrictive than the below listed restrictions, the most restrictive guidance shall apply. These below modifications do not apply to education (including but not limited to K-12, higher education, trade and vocational schools), childcare, health care, and courts and judicial branch-related proceedings, all of which are exempt from the modifications and shall continue to follow current guidance. Terms used in this proclamation have the same definitions used in the Safe Start Washington Phased Reopening County-by-County Plan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
In Truppi v. Pasco Engineering, John Quattro sued Property Management Contractors, Inc. over construction defects in William Truppi’s home. All parties are named in the suit. The California Court of Appeals ruled that Property Management Contractors, Inc. (PMCI) could not compel Mr. Quattro to arbitration. The background of the case involves two houses built in Encinitas, California by PCMI: one for Mr. Truppi at 560 Neptune, and one for Mr. Quattro at 566 Neptune. Both contracts contained an arbitration provision. Mr. Quattro signed the contract for his residence and Mr. Truppi signed the other. Mr. Quattro then sued PCMI and its principal, William Gregory. Mr. Quattro claimed to be the true contracting party for the 560 Neptune residence and a third party beneficiary of the contract Mr. Truppi signed, and stated that PCMI was aware of this. PCMI in a demurrer stated that Quattro “had only a ‘prospective beneficial interest in the property upon its eventual sale or lease.’” Mr. Quattro amended his complaint to account for the issues raised by PCMI. The court rejected PCMI’s demurrer to the amended complaint. Finally, PCMI and Gregory asserted that Quattro was “not the real party in interest” and could not sue. PCMI continues to assert that Quattro lacks standing, but their attorney sent Quattro an e-mail stating, “While my client disputes that you are a party, and that you lack standing to assert the claim, to the extent you do so I believe you are obligated to proceed by way of arbitration.” The court did not cover the issue of Quattro’s standing in the case, only if he could be compelled to arbitration. The court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Quattro could not be compelled to arbitrate the construction defect claim as neither he nor Gregory signed the contract in an individual capacity. Further, the court noted that PCMI and Gregory “denied the existence of an agreement between themselves and Quattro on the 560 contract,” and cannot compel arbitration on a non-existent agreement. And while non-signatories can, in some situations be compelled to arbitrate, the court found that “these cases are inapplicable because here they seek to have the alleged third party beneficiary (Quattro) compelled by a nonsignatory (Gregory).” The arbitration clause in question “expressly limited its application to persons or entities that signed the 560 contract.” As Mr. Quattro was not a signatory to that agreement, the court found that he could not be held to its arbitration provision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractors Pay Heed: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Two Important Issues For Bid Protestors

September 13, 2021 — Andrew Balland - ConsensusDocs
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) recently decided two cases that are relevant to many disappointed offerors considering a bid protest. One decision rendered in March 2021 confirmed the authority of the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) to hear a protest based on an agency’s breach of an implied-in-fact contract. A second decision issued in February 2021 reversed a COFC decision from last year regarding the timeliness requirements to obtain a CICA stay and their interplay with Department of Defense (DoD) enhanced debriefing regulations. Federal Circuit Confirms The Court Of Federal Claims’ Jurisdiction Over Procurement-Related Implied Contract Claims When a contractor’s bid protest is denied by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the unsuccessful protestor may challenge the GAO’s decision as arbitrary and capricious in an action before the COFC. While 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) authorizes the COFC to hear such procurement-related challenges, § 1491(a) also permits the court to adjudicate claims against the United States based on any express or implied contracts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Balland, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES