Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Ten ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

August 30, 2021 — Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
ACS is very honored and pleased to announce ten members of our firm were awarded the distinction of top attorneys in Washington. Our blog articles usually cover Construction Legal News, but we feel this is a newsworthy accolade to be shared with friends and clients. To become candidates to receiving the Super Lawyer nomination, lawyers are nominated by a peer or identified by research. After completing this first step in the process, Super Lawyer’s research department analyzes 12 indicators, such as experience, honors/awards, verdicts/settlements, and others. As for the third step, there is a peer evaluation by practice area. Finally, for step four, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories. In other words, solo and small firm lawyers are compared only with other solo and small firm lawyers, and large firm lawyers are compared with other large firm lawyers. The process is very selective and only 5 percent of the total lawyers in Washington are nominated as Super Lawyers. John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, was recognized as the third Top Lawyer out of all Washington lawyers in the State. Named partner Scott R. Sleight and partner Brett M. Hill were both recognized as one of the 100-Best Lawyers in the State. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

No Coverage for Counterclaim Arising from Insured's Faulty Workmanship

August 03, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit found there was no coverage for the insured's faulty workmanship. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., S.I. v. Mid-American Grain Distributors, LLC, 958 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2020). Mid-American contracted with Lehenbauer to design and construct a grain storage and distribution facility for Lehenbauer. Before the work was competed, Lehenbauer terminated Mid-American's services. Mid-American then sued Lehenbauer for breach of contract. Lehenbauer counterclaimed against Mid-American, alleged breach of "implied duties of workmanlike performance and fitness for a particular purpose" and negligence. Mid-American tendered the counterclaim to American Family. American Family accepted the tender under a reservation of rights, but sued Mid-American for a declaratory judgment. The district court granted American Family's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the counterclaims did not allege an occurrence. 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

Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

February 21, 2013 — David M. McLain — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On January 17, 2013 Representative Fischer introduced House Bill 13-1090 into the Colorado House of Representatives. HB 1090 was assigned the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee. The bill, sponsored by Senator Tochtrop in the Senate, sets the following requirements for both private and public construction contracts: The owner and contractor must make regular progress payments approximately every 30 days to contractors and subcontractors for work actually performed. To receive the progress payments, the contractor and subcontractor must submit a progress payment invoice plus any required documents. A contractor must pass on the progress payment to the subcontractor within 5 days or by the end of the billing cycle. Interest accrues on unpaid progress payments. A contract may extend a billing cycle to 60 days, but the contract must duly warn of this. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
mclain@hhmrlaw.com

When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

August 13, 2019 — Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocs
Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

April 06, 2020 — Yvette Davis & Kyle R. DiNicola - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was signed by the President on March 18, 2020 and will become effective no later than April 2, 2020. The law contains numerous updates to the country’s employment regulations in response to the Coronavirus pandemic of which employers should be familiar. Of particular note, the FFCRA makes limited amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act. Now, pursuant to the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”) employees may take up to 12 weeks of family and medical leave after having worked with the employer for 30 calendar days if the employee is unable to work (or telework) due to the employee’s need to care for a son or daughter under 18 years of age due to the child’s school closure or unavailability of a childcare provider due to a public health emergency, i.e., COVID-19. Unlike the FMLA, which does not apply to many small employers, this requirement applies to any employers with 500 or fewer employees. No mileage radius requirement exists under the EFMLEA. When an employee utilizes leave pursuant to EFMLEA, the first 10 days of that leave may consist of unpaid leave, but the employee may elect to substitute any accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave, including the Emergency Paid Sick Leave provided for by the Act and described below). All subsequent days of leave taken by the employee after the tenth day must be paid by the employer at a rate of not less than two thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay and the number of hours the employee would otherwise normally be scheduled to work. The cap is $200 per day or $10,000 in the aggregate. Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The International Codes Development Process is Changing to Continue Building Code Modernization

March 06, 2023 — The International Code Council
Washington D.C., March 02, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The International Code Council is revising its rigorous code development process. The changes will take effect in 2024-2026 for the development of the 2027 International Codes (I-Codes) and will move the development process to an integrated and continuous three-year cycle. In the new timeline, year one will include two Committee Action Hearings for Group A Codes; year two will include two Committee Action Hearings for Group B Codes; and year three will be the joint Public Comment Hearings and Online Governmental Consensus Vote for both Group A and B Codes. The addition of the second Committee Actions Hearings in year one and two will foster a more in-depth vetting of code change proposals, allowing an opportunity for the committee members to review and evaluate the original proposals and consider the submitted responses. This also provides more opportunity for proponents to build consensus for their code change proposal and ensure the best version of their intended improvement to the existing codes. Additionally, with combined Public Comment Hearings in the third year, voting members are able to vote on all suggested changes to the next edition of the I-Codes at one time. The updated process also provides more opportunity for proposed new referenced standards to be developed and finalized on a consistent timeline regardless of the group (Group A or B) with which they are associated. About the International Code Council The International Code Council is the leading global source of model codes and standards and building safety solutions. Code Council codes, standards and solutions are used to ensure safe, affordable and sustainable communities and buildings worldwide. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

October 10, 2013 — W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
The Colorado Court of Appeals has decided a case which answers a question long in need of an answer: do banks/lenders have standing to assert construction defect claims when they receive title to a newly-constructed home following a foreclosure sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure? The decision was released on August 1, 2013, in the case of Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC v. Hepworth-Pawlack Geotechnical, Inc., Steve Pawlak, Daniel Hadin, and S K Peightal Engineers, Ltd. (Colorado Court of Appeals No. 13CA0519). The background facts of the case are typical of a Colorado residential construction defect case generally. A developer contracted for an analytical soil engineering report from a geotechnical engineering firm (H-P) which made a foundation recommendation. The developer’s general contractor then retained an engineering firm (SPKE) to provide engineering services, including a foundation design. The general contractor built the foundation in accordance with the H-P and SPKE criteria and plans. The house was not sold by the developer and went into default on the construction loan. These events resulted in a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure to a bank-controlled entity which purchased the house for re-sale. Shortly after receiving the developer’s deed, the bank-related entity discovered defects in the foundation that resulted in a construction defect suit against the two design firms and related individuals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

CRH to Buy Building-Products Firm Laurence for $1.3 Billion

September 03, 2015 — Phil Serafino & Andrew Marc Noel – Bloomberg
CRH Plc agreed to buy Los Angeles-based C.R. Laurence Co. for $1.3 billion to expand in products used in window installation as U.S. construction markets stabilize. C.R. Laurence, which is owned by the Friese family, makes hardware and products used in the installation of architectural glass and generated pretax profit of $51 million in 2014, Dublin-based CRH said in a statement Thursday. CRH shares rose 4.9 percent to 25.79 euros as of 8:56 a.m. in Dublin, giving the company a market value of 21.2 billion euros ($24 billion). The purchase is timed with a recovery in U.S. construction markets, driven by demand for industrial buildings. CRH reported a "promising backlog" of business at its Americas Materials division in May. Combining the companies will generate $40 million a year in savings from 2017, it said. Reprinted courtesy of Phil Serafino, Bloomberg and Andrew Marc Noel, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES