SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

January 31, 2018 — Sean Minahan – Construction Contract Advisor
According to a quick Google search the term “holding the bag” comes from the mid eighteenth century and means be left with the onus of what was originally another’s responsibility. Nobody wants to be left holding the bag. But that is the situation our client (subcontractor) found themselves in when upon completion of a public project the general contractor went out of business before paying the remaining amount due and owing to our client. Under Nebraska law, liens are not allowed against public projects. Instead the subcontractor is to make a claim on the payment and performance bond secured by the general contractor at the start of the project. In our case, the general contractor never secured a bond on which to make a claim; consequently, leaving our client holding the bag. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Minaham, Lamson, Dugan and Murrary, LLP
Mr. Minahan may be contacted at sminahan@ldmlaw.com

---

Read the Property Insurance Policy to be Sure You are Complying with Post Loss Obligations

January 04, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
I have discussed this before in prior postings, but it is worth repeating. It is imperative for an insured to comply with post loss obligations in a property insurance policy. Not doing so gives the insurer the argument that its insured forfeited coverage under the policy. Naturally, this is never what an insured wants as this is contrary to submitting an insurance claim to begin with. To avoid this situation, an insured should consult with counsel and read the policy including endorsements issued to the policy to be sure that post loss obligations are complied with and, if they are not, there is a basis supported by case law. In a recent case, Goldberg v. Universal Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2118b (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), the property insurance policy for hurricanes and windstorms contained the following through an endorsement issued to the policy: You must give notice of a claim, a supplemental claim, or reopened claim for loss or damage caused by the peril of windstorm or hurricane, with us in accordance with the terms of this policy and within three years after the hurricane first made landfall or the windstorm caused the covered damage. For purposes of this Section, the term “supplemental claim” or “reopened claim” means any additional claim for recovery from us for losses from the same hurricane or windstorm which we have previously adjusted pursuant to the initial claim. . . . 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

---

The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In recent years, more courts have started to view construction defects as accidents, covered under insurance policies. In a post on the Parr Brown Gee & Loveless web site, Jeffrey D. Stevens writes that “the number of courts siding with insurance companies to deny contractors and subcontractors insurance coverage in construction defect lawsuits has been shrinking.” Recently, the Supreme Court of West Virginia “switched sides on this issue completely.” The Utah Supreme Court has not made a ruling on this, but the Federal District Court for the District of Utah and the Tenth Circuit have looked at Utah law and concluded that “under Utah law damage caused by construction defects is not accidental.” But in another case, “the district court determined that property damage allegedly caused by defective or defectively installed windows was caused by an accident.” Mr. Stevens thinks that “it is likely” that the Utah Supreme Court “will follow the increasing number of courts that have held that damage caused by construction defects is an accident for insurance purposes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

April 08, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Bock v. Hansen (No. A136567, filed 4/2/14), a California appeals court held that an adjuster employed by an insurer can be sued personally for falsely representing that a first party claimant's policy does not cover a loss. In Bock, a 41-foot long, 7,300 pound tree limb crashed onto the insureds' home, damaging the roof, chimney, living room walls, windows and floors. The assigned adjuster was alleged to have engaged in "appalling" conduct, including instructing the insureds to clean up the damage themselves (leading to personal injury); denying that the tree cracked the chimney; insulting and disparaging the insureds; altering the scene before taking photographs; misrepresenting the terms of the policy; preparing false claim reports; conspiring with a contractor to prepare an intentionally false report; and knowingly relying on the false report in order to deny a legitimate claim. The homeowners sued the insurer and named the adjuster personally on causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the adjuster demurred arguing that he could not be sued personally because, as an employee of the insurer, he owed no duty to the insureds. The adjuster relied on Sanchez v. Lindsey Morden Claims Services, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 249 and Lippert v. Bailey (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 376, to argue that employees and agents of insurers cannot be held personally liable since, under the law of agency, the proper cause of action is against the principal and not the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp Obtain Summary Judgment in Favor of Residential Property Owners

December 13, 2022 — Gregory S. Pennington & Emily A. Velcamp - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp obtained summary judgment in favor of their clients, owners of a residential property [the “Owners” or “Defendants”] used as a short-term rental in Beach Haven, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleged injuries resulting from a fall into an open water meter pit, located in the public sidewalk abutting the Owners’ property during the time within which the property was rented to plaintiff and his family. According to plaintiff, defendants breached their duty owed to him, relying on a Borough of Beach Haven Ordinance, thereby allowing the water meter pit to be raised in an unsafe manner, which resulted in plaintiff’s fall and subsequent injuries.  After the Court denied defendants’ initial Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that issues of material fact existed regarding defendants’ duty and the alleged breach of that duty, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp argued that their clients, as residential landowners, owed no duty of care to plaintiff for the raised condition of the water meter pit lid, located in the abutting sidewalk, as they did not cause or contribute to the alleged condition. Defendants further argued that even if a duty of care existed, no breach occurred given the lack of notice to defendants, either actual or constructive. Plaintiff attempted to argue that defendants had constructive notice of the lid’s raised condition, relying on his expert report and the fact that defendants had 3.5 months from the date the property was purchased, to the date of the subject accident to discover the lid’s raised condition. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp successfully argued that despite plaintiff’s allegations and the findings contained in plaintiff’s expert report, authored 2 months after the alleged accident, there was still no credible, material evidence to say how long the water meter pit lid was in that raised condition to allow defendants a reasonable time to discover it, remedy it, or report it to the Borough. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and Emily A. Velcamp, Traub Lieberman Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com Ms. Velcamp may be contacted at evelcamp@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Denver’s Proposed Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis

March 06, 2022 — Taylor Ostrowski - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Over the past ten years, Colorado has seen a population growth of almost 15 percent, with many residing in Denver. In fact, in 2020, Denver ranked among the top five cities for inbound growth in the United States. At the same time, from 2010 through 2020, the state’s production of new housing decreased by 40 percent. The decrease in supply, coupled with the increase in demand has exasperated the already rising cost of housing in the state. This, along with other external factors such as job loss due to the COVID pandemic, has resulted in a statewide housing crisis. The City of Denver is proposing a revision to the municipal code that would expand affordable housing through three main tools: (1) increasing “linkage fees,” (2) requiring new multi-family development to designate a percentage of units to be affordable, and (3) offering zoning and financial incentives. The proposal addresses both rental housing and ownership opportunities. Although it is essential to combat the housing crisis and increased homelessness in the region, it is equally important to understand the impacts the proposed affordable housing ordinance would have on developers, if and when enacted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Taylor Ostrowski, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Ostrowski may be contacted at ostrowski@hhmrlaw.com

---

South Carolina Couple Must Arbitrate Construction Defect Claim

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The South Carolina Court of Appeals has rejected a claim by Sun City property owners that they were not bound by the arbitration clause in their purchase agreement. Roger and Mary Jo Carlson brought the claim against Del Webb Communities and Pulte Homes. About 140 homeowners are alleging problems in the community. According to the court, the Carlsons will have to go through arbitration with the companies over the alleged stucco defects to their home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

May 15, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

---