Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Vexed by Low Demand for Mortgages

April 15, 2014 — Zachary Tracer – Bloomberg
Slack demand for home loans continued to drag on earnings at Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) as the two largest U.S. mortgage lenders grappled for pieces of a shrunken market. Even as interest rates hovered near historically low levels, new home loans tumbled 67 percent to $36 billion in the first quarter at San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, the biggest originator. JPMorgan posted a 68 percent drop to $17 billion, and the bank predicted it would lose money on mortgage production for the full year. Both lenders are paring staff to keep expenses in line with demand for loans, which has waned as investors and cash buyers dominate some sales. New York-based JPMorgan said jobs at its mortgage business declined 14,000, or 30 percent, since the start of last year. Wells Fargo set plans to cut 1,100 positions in the most recent three months, which ranked as its worst first quarter for mortgage revenue since 2008. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Tracer, Bloomberg
Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net

OSHA Announces Expansion of “Severe Violator Enforcement Program”

November 15, 2022 — Kip J. Adams & Steven G. Gatley - Lewis Brisbois
(October 28, 2022) - Employers beware! The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is significantly expanding its “Severe Violator Enforcement Program” (SVEP). Employers that are placed into the program by OSHA will be significantly scrutinized, with the potential for very damaging information about their failure to maintain a safe workplace being made public for customers, partners, and vendors to see. As the name suggests, the program is meant to identify, classify, and then stringently monitor employees deemed to be “severe violators” of the OSH Act. According to the OSHA website alert, to be deemed a “severe violator”, the agency must find that the employer has demonstrated “indifference” to the regulations by committing “willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate” violations. Reprinted courtesy of Kip J. Adams, Lewis Brisbois and Steven G. Gatley, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Adams may be contacted at Kip.Adams@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Gatley may be contacted at Steven.Gatley@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Acceptable Worksite: New City of Seattle Specification Provisions Now In Effect

July 13, 2017 — Lindsay K. Taft - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
The City of Seattle’s City Purchasing & Contracting Services recently revised its General Special Provisions for City construction contracts to add new “Acceptable Worksite” language. The City indicates that the purpose of the provisions is “to ensure that City construction worksites are respectful and appropriate, including prohibiting bullying, hazing, and other similar behaviors.” An “Acceptable Worksite” is defined as a worksite “that is appropriate, productive, and safe work for all workers” and “free from behaviors that may impair production, and/or undermine the integrity of the work conditions including but not limited to job performance, safety, productivity, or efficiency of workers.” Prohibited behaviors under the new specification provisions include persistent offensive conduct and language, hazing, offensive jokes about race, gender, or sexuality, assigning undesirable tasks or unskilled work to trained apprentices and journey-level workers, refusal to hire based on race, gender, or sexuality, and references to or requests for immigration status. The new program also includes monitoring, response, and enforcement of the provisions by City Purchasing and Contracting Services employees. Finally, the language must also be incorporated into all sub-tier contracts on City projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”

October 15, 2024 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
Many contractors and owners believe that if they hire an independent contractor to perform work and that independent contractor causes injury to others during the performance of that work, then it is the independent contractor alone who will be liable for those injuries. In most circumstances, this is correct. The owner or the contractor will not be held liable for injuries caused by his or her independent contractor. However, this is not always the case. Under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine” and California cases interpreting the doctrine, a contractor or owner who hires an independent contractor to do work which is considered to be “inherently dangerous work” can be still be held directly liable for damages when that independent contractor causes injury to others by negligently performing the work. Such liability can generally be imposed on the one hiring the independent contractor under either of two branches of the peculiar risk doctrine. First, where a person hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work, but fails to provide in the contract or in some other manner that special precautions must be taken to avert the peculiar risk of injury related to that work, then the one hiring the independent contractor can be held liable for injuries to others caused by the independent contractor’s negligence. (Restatement Second of Torts Section 413). For example, in Mackey v. Campbell Construction Co. 101 Cal. App. 3d 774, 162 Cal. Rptr. 64 (1980), Western Electric Company, the owner of the project, was found liable for the personal injuries of a subcontractor’s employee because Western’s representatives were on the job at all times, had doubts about the safety of scaffolding being used on the project, yet failed to require use of precautions that could have been taken to avoid injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin Doctrine

September 13, 2021 — Peter Roth – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America
September 9, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the decision of The Supreme Court of The State of Washington to reverse the lower court ruling in the case of Lake Hills Investments, LLC vs. Rushforth Construction Co. As argued by SFAA, the Supreme Court found the contractor should not be responsible for damage caused by the defective design provided by the owner even where the contractor was responsible for certain defective work. In addition, the contractor is not completely barred from asserting this defense if the defects were caused by a combination of deficient performance by the contractor and deficient design, and proportional liability should be determined. The SFAA, along with the National Electrical Contractors Association Puget Sound Chapter (NECA), Mechanical Contractors Association of Western Washington (MCAWW) and SMACNA-Western Washington (SMACNA), issued an Amici Curiae in support of Petitioner AP Rushforth Construction Co., Inc. d/b/a AP Rushforth, and Adolfson & Peterson, Inc.’s (collectively “AP”) Petition for Discretionary Review. In the brief they argued the Court should grant the Petition because the decision by the lower court is contrary to precedent of limiting a contractor’s liability when the owner’s defective plans and specifications caused the defective work, and upsets settled expectations of allocation of risk and liability between contractors, owners and architects (among others) on construction projects. This allocation of risk and the principle of limiting the contractor’s liability for defective work based on defective plans and specifications is long settled doctrine in Washington State and throughout the country, a doctrine based on the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in U.S. vs. Spearin more than 100 years ago. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. www.surety.org Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Roth, SFAA
Mr. Roth may be contacted at proth@surety.org

Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

December 02, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The proper venue for a Miller Act payment bond claim is “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed, regardless of the amount in controversy.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(3)(B). Well, there are a number of federal construction projects that take place outside of the United States. For these projects, where is the correct venue to sue a Miller Act payment bond if there is no US District Court where the project is located? A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida answers this question. In U.S. ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3842290 (S.D.Fla. 2019), a prime contractor was hired by the government to design and construct a solar power system for the US Embassy’s parking garage in Burkina Faso. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform a portion of its scope of work. The subcontractor remained unpaid in excess of $500,000 and instituted a Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety in the Southern District of Florida, Miami division. The surety moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia arguing that the Southern District of Florida was an improper venue. The court agreed and transferred venue. Why? 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

More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

July 30, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As those that read this construction blog on a regular basis know, I became a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator a few years ago. I did so because I believe that mediation as a form of alternate dispute resolution is in most cases a much better alternative to resolve a construction dispute than litigation. While I still act as counsel to construction companies participating in mediations (and have posted my thoughts on this topic on numerous occasions), working with the General District Courts of Virginia and acting as a mediator for private disputes has given me an interesting perspective on how the flexibility and process of mediation can resolve disputes in a way that formal court litigation or other forms of ADR may not. After almost 4 years of working with the general district courts here in Virginia and working with private companies and individuals to resolve their disputes, I have come to the conclusion that often the real issue is not the money (though that is the big one) but some other intangible issue, whether an emotional one or some conflict of personality or even what may seem in hindsight to be a minor miscommunication. Because of this fact of life, and the life of a mediator, the ability to “vent” in the confidential setting of a mediation and in a way that no Court with rules of evidence could allow can go a long way toward a resolution of the dispute. 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

SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

June 21, 2024 — Lorelie S. Masters, Kevin W. Jones & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Part I of this series, SAFETY Act is Powerful Protection Against Emerging Liabilities, addressed the benefits of obtaining SAFETY Act coverage, including:

From a reputational perspective, SAFETY Act protection provides benefits even absent a security incident: it demonstrates that a knowledgeable federal agency has examined the relevant technology and determined that it is both safe and effective.
SAFETY Act protection can benefit companies taking steps to enhance the security of their physical premises and operations, or their cybersecurity defenses, to reduce their potential liability and enhance their reputation.
Other benefits include—depending on the level of protection—powerful liability protections including exclusive federal jurisdiction and choice of law for the venue where the incident occurred, caps on liability, prohibitions on punitive damages, and government contractor immunity.

This post will explain the levels of protection that a company can seek under the SAFETY Act. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Kevin W. Jones, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Jones may be contacted at kjones@HuntonAK.com Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES