SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

August 20, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Lump sum subcontract? Perhaps not due to a recent ruling where the trial court said “No!” based on the language in the subcontract and contract documents generally incorporated into the subcontract. This is a ruling on an interpretation of a subcontract and contract documents incorporated into the subcontract that I do not agree with and struggle to fully comprehend. The issue was whether the subcontract amount was a lump sum or subject to an audit, adjustment, and definitization based on actual costs incurred. Of course, the subcontractor (or any person in any business) is not just interested in recouping actual costs, but there needs to be a margin to cover profit and home office overhead that does not get factored into field general conditions. In United States v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, 2018 WL 6571234 (M.D.Fla. 2018), a prime contractor was hired to perform work on a federal project. During the work, the Government issued the prime contractor a Modification that had a not-to-exceed value and required the prime contractor to track its costs for this Modification separate from other contract costs. In other words, based on this Modification, the prime contractor was paid its costs up to a maximum amount and the prime contractor would separately cost-code and track the costs for this work differently than other work it was performing under the prime contract. 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

---

EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

January 13, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The pre-publication version of the final rule to be promulgated by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to repeal the 2015 redefinition of the Clean Water Act’s term “Waters of the United States” which is the linchpin of these agencies’ regulatory power under the CWA, was made available on September 12, 2019. The rule should be published in the Federal Register in the next few weeks, and it will be effective 60 days thereafter. Many challenges are expected to be filed in the federal courts. The 2015 rule was very controversial, and petitions challenging the rule were filed in many federal district courts, several courts of appeal, and finally in the Supreme Court (see NAM v. Department of Defense), which held that all initial challenges must be filed in the federal district courts. The upshot of these challenges is that, at this time, the 2015 rule has been enjoined in more than half the states while the other states are bound by the 2015 rule, a situation which is frustrating for everyone. In addition to repealing the 2015 rule, the agencies also restored the pre-2015 definition had had been in place since 1986. As a result, the pre-2015 definition of waters of the U.S. will again govern the application of the following rules: (a) the ACOE’s definition of “waters of the U.S.” at 33 CFR Section 328.3; (b) EPA’s general Oil Discharge rule at 40 CFR Section 110; (c) the SPCC rules at 40 CFR Part 112; (d) EPA’s designation of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 116; (e) EPA’s hazardous substance reportable quantity rule at 40 CFR Part 117; (f) the NPDES permitting rules at 40 CFR Part 122; (g) the guidelines for dredged or fill disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 230; (g) Exempt activities not requiring a CWA 404 permit (guidelines for 404 disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 232); (h) the National Contingency Plan rules at 40 CFR Part 300; (i) the designation of reportable quantities of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302; and (j) EPA’s Effluent Guidelines standards at 40 CFR Part 401. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

District Court denies Carpenters Union Motion to Dismiss RICO case- What it Means

March 16, 2017 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
In a case that has been widely discussed on this blog, a United States federal district court Judge denied the Philadelphia Carpenters’ Union’s motion to dismiss a federal RICO case filed against it by the Pennsylvania Convention Center. Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro issued the ruling on the Union’s motion. Unfortunately, Judge Quinoses Alejandro did not issue an opinion to go along with her order. This is a bit unusual. Federal Judges routinely issue opinions (if only in footnote form) even on motion dealing with procedural issues. like discovery disputes. The lack of an opinion prevents us from knowing the Judge’s rationale for denying the motion. Therefore, the order lack precedental value for subsequent cases. However, I do not believe the order is any less significant. Potential plaintiffs now know that a federal RICO case against a union can survive a motion to dismiss. Moreover, the attorneys for the Convention Center have provided potential plaintiffs a road map for doing so. As I have stated before, the fact pattern in the Convention case is hardly unique and the tactics the Carpenters used in that case are de ri·gueur. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

June 30, 2016 — Sanjo Shatley, Esq. – Florida Construction Law Update
On July 20, 2015, diplomatic relations were officially restored between the U.S. and Cuba. Since that date, a number of significant political events have taken place. First, the U.S. reopened its embassy in Cuba on August 14, 2015. Next, on January 26, 2016, offices of the U.S. Departments of the Treasury and Commerce announced new amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Export Administration Regulations. These amendments removed “existing restrictions on payment and financing terms for authorized exports and reexports to Cuba of items other than agricultural items or commodities,” and established “a case-by-case licensing policy for exports and reexports of items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including those made to Cuban state-owned enterprises.”[1] Additionally, these amendments “further facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes by allowing blocked space, code-sharing, and leasing arrangements with Cuban airlines, authorizing additional travel-related and other transactions directly incident to the temporary sojourn of aircraft and vessels, and authorizing additional transactions related to professional meetings and other events, disaster preparedness and response projects, and information and informational materials, including transactions incident to professional media or artist productions in Cuba.”[2] Finally, on March 21, 2016, President Barack Obama was the first sitting U.S. President to visit Cuba since the 1959 revolution, in which Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista. This revolution ultimately led to the U.S. severing diplomatic relations in 1961 and President John F. Kennedy imposing a trade embargo between the U.S. and Cuba, which remains in effect today. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo Shatley, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com

---

Disaster Remediation Contracts: Understanding the Law to Avoid a Second Disaster

August 30, 2017 — Todd Colvard – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, consumers and contractors should be aware of protections prescribed by the Texas Legislature for Disaster Remediation Contracts. Chapter 58 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code includes several important consumer protections. Consumers should be aware of these protections, and contractors should take care to avoid inadvertent violations. This statute applies to a contractor engaged in “disaster remediation,” in a county subject to a disaster declaration. Those contracts are subject to certain notice provisions and limitations. A violation of Chapter 58 is considered a Deceptive Trade Practice and could subject a violator to both public and private remedies. The full text of Chapter 58 is found here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BC/htm/BC.58.htm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Todd Colvard, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Colvard may be contacted at tcolvard@pecklaw.com

---

Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

October 05, 2020 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., __F.3d__(July 2, 2020), the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court in connection with a contribution action for defense costs filed by Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“Zurich”) against Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”) with respect to the defense and settlement of 14 construction defect lawsuits on behalf of eight subcontractors (“lawsuits”) insured by both companies:

Whether, under Nevada law, the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion of coverage in an insurance policy falls on the insurer or the insured? Whichever party bears such a burden, may it rely on evidence extrinsic to the complaint to carry its burden, and if so, is it limited to extrinsic evidence available at the time the insured tendered the defense of the lawsuit to the insurer?

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Legislative Update on Bills of Note (Updated Post-Adjournment)

March 27, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In two prior posts, one specifically relating to a bill that was introduced to apply a statute of limitatons on state agencies for construction projects and one more general, I discussed some of the legislation pending in the Virginia General Assembly that could be of interest to construction professionals. This post will update the status of these bills and add one that I neglected to highlight in the prior posts. I’ll begin with the oversight. HB 2218 Makes the unlawful and unlicensed practice of contracting, real estate brokering, or real estate sales, in connection with a consumer transaction, unlawful under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. In short, it makes explicit what was implicit, namely that contractors that perform work without a license are in violation of the VCPA. This bill has passed the house by unanimous vote and is in committee at the Senate. UPDATE– As of February 20, 2019, this bill has passed both houses, all that is left is the paperwork. Post Adjournment Update: This bill passed and awaits Governor’s signature. 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

---

Court Makes an Unsettling Inference to Find that the Statute of Limitations Bars Claims Arising from a 1997 Northridge Earthquake Settlement

April 15, 2015 — David W. Evans and Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Britton v. Girardi (No. B249232 – Filed 4/1/2015), the Second Appellate District upheld the trial court’s dismissal due to the statute of limitations based on an inference it drew from a letter attached to the complaint, while reaffirming its prior application of the limitations period in Probate Code section 16460 for fraud claims in the related case of Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2/27/2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105. In Britton, just as in Prakashpalan, the plaintiffs sued the attorneys who had represented them in connection with claims against their insurer arising out of the Northridge earthquake. In 1997, the attorneys had settled that litigation for more than $100 million. The plaintiffs allege that the attorneys breached their fiduciary duty by (1) failing to provide an accounting for the settlement, (2) failing to obtain their informed consent to the settlement, and (3) concealing their misappropriation of the settlement funds. They claim that they did not discover this wrongdoing until nearly fifteen years later, in 2012, when the Prakashpalans contacted them about their settlement. Significantly, the plaintiffs attached as an exhibit to the complaint a page of the November 3, 1997 letter to the Prakashpalans (rather than the plaintiffs), which stated that a retired judge who presided over the settlement had determined the allocations and the attorneys could not distribute the proceeds until the plaintiffs signed the “Master Settlement Agreement” by which the plaintiffs agreed to its terms and to give up all claims against the insurer. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---