Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

April 10, 2019 — Parker A. Lewton - Smith Currie
A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

December 04, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent appellate opinion starts off, “This is a typical South Florida construction dispute.” (See case citation at the bottom) Let’s see, is it? No. It’s a garden variety payment dispute where the parties did NOT have a binding contract. Why? That’s for a different day (because the smart practice is ALWAYS to have a contract!) but it touches on the equitable, unjust enrichment claim. And it touches on competing unjust enrichment claims and the apportionment of those claims. In other words, can both parties be right on their unjust enrichment claims? An owner hired a general contractor for home renovations. Work started but the relationship soured and the general contractor did not complete the work. The general contractor filed a payment dispute against the owner based on unpaid invoices. It pled alternative theories of recovery against the owner: breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The owner filed a counterclaim against the general contractor for the same claims. During the non-jury trial, the general contractor presented unpaid invoices along with testimony that the invoices represented the value of services rendered. The owner presented evidence of the completion of work damages. 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 Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

February 07, 2018 — Craig Wallace – Smith Currie
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (01.18.18) ____ Cal.4th _____ (2018 WL 456728) The California Supreme Court confirmed that the Right to Repair Act (CA Civil Code § 895, et seq. and often referred to by its legislative nomenclature as “SB800”) applies broadly to any action by a residential owner seeking recovery of damages for construction defects, regardless of whether such defects caused property damages or only economic losses. This includes the right in the Act of the builder to attempt repairs prior to the owner filing a lawsuit. Background Homeowners sued builder for construction defects. Included in their causes of action was a cause of action for violation of the Right To Repair Act. The Act requires that before filing litigation, a homeowner must give the builder notice and engage in a nonadversarial prelitigation process which gives the builder a right to repair the defects. The builder asked the court to stay the homeowners’ action so the prelitigaiton process could be undertaken. Rather than give the builder the repair right, the homeowners dismissed the particular cause of action from their case, leaving only other so-called common law and warranty causes of action. The common law claims sought recovery for property damage caused by the defects. The builder nonetheless asked to the Court to stay the action so it could exercise its right to repair. The trial court, relying on Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, denied builder’s request to stay the action. The Liberty Mutual Court concluded that certain common law construction defect claims fell outside the purview of the Act. Builder appealed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Liberty Mutual, so did not follow it, granted the builder’s request for a stay, and directed that the homeowners afford the builder the right to repair the claimed defects as provided under the Act. The California Supreme Court affirmed, disapproving Liberty Mutual and the subsequent cases relying on it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Wallace, Smith Currie
Mr. Wallace may be contacted at swwallace@smithcurrie.com

Merger to Create Massive Los Angeles Construction Firm

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
AECOM Technology Corp., a Los Angeles engineering and construction firm, has agreed to pay $4 billion to acquire URS Corp., their San Francisco competitor. According to the Sacramento Bee, “The combined company will employ about 95,000 people in 150 countries.” AECOM is currently building the World Trade Center in New York, and previous projects include the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters, and renovations to the Port of Los Angeles and the Bradley international terminal at the Los Angeles International Airport, the Sacramento Bee reported. Furthermore, “URS has worked on the Garden Grove (22) Freeway reconstruction, the UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center, the Port of Long Beach, the Gold Line Eastside Extension in Los Angeles and the Disneyland resort expansion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland

August 19, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Remember that case I discussed a while back relating to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) building in Annapolis, Maryland? Remember how it was a lawsuit over parallams and failure of those parallams? Do you even remember what a parallam is? Well, that case was initially dismissed upon the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment because the trial court determined that CBF did not file its lawsuit within the proper time frame after notice of the potential failure of the building materials. Of course, CBF appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under the caption The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et. al. v. Weyerhaeuser Company (4th Circuit). After a great review of the facts of the case, the engineering inspections and reports at issue and the trial court’s ruling, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the district court jumped the gun in dismissing the lawsuit so early in the process because:

a genuine dispute exists as to whether knowledge of the water infiltration problem would have put a reasonable person on notice that the Parallams were susceptible to premature deterioration and that their PolyClear 2000 treatment would not preserve them.

In short, the court ruled that the engineering reports relating to moisture issues would have put CBF on notice of the particular issue of deterioration that was at issue in the litigation. 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

Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

January 28, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer properly denied coverage for collapse of a building when the insured knew from an expert’s examination that the walls of his house were deteriorating. Jaimes v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2018 U. S. Dust. LEXIS 198224 (D. Colo. Nov. 21, 2018). The insured discovered a crack in the wall of his home. He hired Anchor Engineering to inspect. Anchor found a large bulge in the south wall. Several problems with deterioration were noted in the basement. The structure of the house was unstable and dangerous. The insured filed a claim with his homeowners insurer, Liberty. The claim was denied because damage to the wall was the result of deterioration. The south wall of the house later collapsed. The insured submitted a second claim. Liberty again denied the claim because the collapse was the result of deterioration of the wall. The insured sued. 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

Treasure Island Sues Beach Trail Designer over Concrete Defects

September 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The city of Treasure Island, Florida “has filed a lawsuit against Graham Landscape Design of St. Petersburg and Coastal Technology Corp. of Vero Beach for failing to properly design the 1-mile trail along the city's beachfront, which has hundreds of cracks in its concrete surface,” reported the Tampa Bay Times. "The city has been unable to resolve the construction defects of the Central Beach Trail outside of the litigation process," City Attorney Maura Kiefer said to the Tampa Bay Times. Cracks allegedly began appearing on the $1.2 million dollar trail soon after the project was concluded (March 2013). Treasure Island “submitted a performance bond claim and notified insurance companies representing Graham Landscape of the problem.” Consultants hired by Phil Graham IV, the owner of the design company, determined that the cracking was caused by “a combination of problems in the design, construction and composition of materials.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

January 17, 2023 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Congratulations to:

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES