Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

November 10, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Construction liens need to be recorded within 90 days from the lienor’s final furnishing date on the project. This date is exclusive of punchlist or warranty work. The final furnishing date needs to be proven at trial to establish that the construction lien was timely recorded. If there is an evidentiary dispute as the final furnishing date (the contractor claims the date was “x” to establish the lien was timely and the owner claims the date was “y” to establish the lien was untimely), then the date is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. For instance, in Best Drywall Services, Inc. v. Blasczyk, 2016 WL 6246701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), a contractor and owner entered into an oral agreement for a residential renovation project. The contractor recorded a construction lien after its final two invoices went unpaid. During trial, the contractor offered conflicting evidence as to when its final furnishing date on the project was. Numerous dates were offered in the record including dates that were more than 90 days prior to the date the contractor recorded its lien, meaning the lien was arguably untimely. As a result, the trial judge entered a directed verdict in favor of the owner and against the contractor on the contractor’s lien claim finding the lien was untimely recorded. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

December 27, 2021 — Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In a win for policyholders, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling, which held that the duty to indemnify follows the duty to defend where a settlement precludes a determination on the facts of the case relative to liability and apportionment. In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.,1 a large concrete panel collapsed and killed a construction worker at a construction site in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. Cost Company (“Cost”), Liberty Mutual’s insured, was a masonry subcontractor on the project and had further subcontracted with Pittsburgh Flexicore Co. (“Flexicore”), Penn National’s insured, for the concrete panels. Cost’s subcontract agreement required Flexicore to name Cost as an additional insured under its general liability policy issued by Penn National. When the construction worker’s widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Cost and Flexicore, Cost demanded that Penn National defend and indemnify it as an additional insured under the policy. Penn National refused, arguing that any additional insured status had terminated at the conclusion of Flexicore’s work for Cost. As a result, Liberty Mutual defended Cost in the lawsuit, which was ultimately settled. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com

More (and Simpler) Options Under New Oregon Retention Law

October 21, 2024 — Michael Yelle - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Similar to the changes made by the Washington Legislature last year, the Oregon Legislature recently changed its retention law. Oregon public works agencies and large commercial project owners are now required to accept surety bonds in lieu of withholding retainage on construction projects. There is also no longer a requirement to deposit retention funds in an interest-bearing escrow account. The owner or public agency must accept the bond in lieu of retainage unless specific grounds exist. For example, public agencies must find there is “good cause” for rejection of the bond based on the “unique project circumstances. Private owners have less discretion to reject a bond and if the bond meets the statutory requirements, per ORS 701.435(1)(a) “the owner and lender shall accept” the bond “in lieu of all or any portion of the retainage…” Courts have not analyzed when “good cause” exists for public agencies to reject bonds or exactly what will allow a private owner to reject a bond. However, an agency or owner cannot have a general policy to reject retention bonds. The statute does not provide next steps if the contractor disagrees with a decision to reject the bond. It may be necessary to proceed under the contract’s dispute resolution procedure or it may be more appropriate to take the issue directly to the courts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Yelle may be contacted at michael.yelle@acslawyers.com

Summary Judgment Granted to Insurer for Hurricane Damage

January 24, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion for summary judgment, contending there was no coverage for hurricane damage, was granted. Laurence v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227807 (S.D. Texas Nov. 29, 2021). When Hurricane Harvey hit, Mike Laurence held a homeowner's policy from Liberty Insurance Corporation and a contractor policy for his business, Pride Plumbing, Inc., issued by State Farm Lloyds. Laurence's property suffered water damage during the storm. State Farm investigated and concluded that all but a small amount, within the policy's deductible, was from flood damage and excluded. Laurence sued. The property covered by the State Farm policy included Laurence's home, Pride Plumbing's office and two sheds. Pride Pluming did not own or lease any of the buildings on the property. Laurence testified in his deposition that the only damage to his property not caused by flood water was to three buildings from fallen tree limbs and equipment from his business. 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

Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

February 24, 2020 — Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown & Tyler B. Runge - Payne & Fears
On January 31, 2020, Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction "in full" preventing the State of California from enforcing AB 51, the state's new law effectively banning mandatory employee arbitration agreements. As we previously reported, AB 51 adds section 432.6 to the Labor Code and section 12953 to the Government Code, which together prohibit employers from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or receipt of employment-related benefits, to waive any right, forum, or procedure to pursue a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the Labor Code. In other words, AB 51 bans mandatory employment arbitration agreements for employment-related claims. In early December 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business organizations sued the state of California in federal court in a bid to have AB 51 declared preempted --- and therefore unenforceable --- by the Federal Arbitration Act. The case is Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Becerra, Case No. 2:19-cv-2456 KJM DB (E.D. Cal.). On December 30, 2019, Judge Mueller issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing AB 51 pending the resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. You can read our report here. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown and Tyler B. Runge Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at kb@paynefears.com Mr. Runge may be contacted at tbr@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time

December 13, 2022 — Aaron Clark & Erica Yokoyama - Bloomberg
Takumi Osawa kneels on the narrow balcony of a wooden house outside Tokyo and describes how, 140 years ago, workers would have hoisted baskets of mulberry leaves to the second floor to feed silkworms. When they ate, it sounded like rain. Known in Japan as minka, these locally crafted structures with characteristic pitched roofs were built for hundreds of years to accommodate farmers, artisans and merchants. This one was originally constructed in 1879 and housed a family on the first floor who tended silkworms on the second and third. Minka are typically designed like an interlocking puzzle, without nails or screws, which allowed Osawa and a team of craftsmen to take the building apart, move it about 90 kilometers (56 miles) east and reassemble it closer to Tokyo, where a couple now live in it. The number of empty homes in Japan is rising as the population shrinks and younger generations gravitate toward the city. Government data suggests as many as 8 million houses, many built during a post-World War II construction boom that lasted into the 1980s, now lie unoccupied. Reprinted courtesy of Aaron Clark, Bloomberg and Erica Yokoyama, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

September 20, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Archdiocese failed to plead breach of contract against the County for failure to name the Archdiocese as an additional insured under the liability policy. Pachella v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 2017 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 595 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Aug. 14, 2017). Richard and Pachella filed a complaint against the Archdiocese, alleging that Mrs. Pachella was injured when she tripped and fell on the sidewalk outside of St. Patrick's Parish. At the time, the County was leasing St. Patrick's premises for use as an election polling place. The Archdiocese filed a third party complaint alleging negligence and breach of contract claims under a Lease Agreement between St. Patrick's and the County. 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

Contractor Haunted by “Demonized” Flooring

December 14, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The most un-Halloween of Halloweens has come and gone. If you ask me though, between COVID, protests, fires, hurricanes, the passing of a Supreme Court Justice, and one of the most hotly contested elections in U.S. history, we’ve had enough scares this year to make up for it and then some. In the next case, Sieg v. Registrar of Contractors, Case No. A156089 (September 28, 2020), 1st District Court of Appeal, one contractor, haunted by “demonized” flooring, and who couldn’t catch a break even with the talisman of a release of liability signed by the homeowner, can add one more to his list of reasons why 2020 needs to be relegated to the history books. The Sieg Case In January 2012, homeowners Dennis and Ana Torchia purchased wood flooring for their home in Windsor, California. Specifically, they selected Brazilian Ebony, an exotic species of unusually hard wood, for its appearance and durability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES