Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

March 01, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
I know, you’re probably looking for a punchline, and likely thinking something along the lines of “only a construction attorney would be sitting in his office and come up with such an analogy,” but I really do think it’s a good one. When you are buying a car, you look for priorities. Is the color what you want? Is the motor a hybrid or a v-6? Does it have Android Auto? What is the fuel mileage? All of these things may be more or less important to you. If you can get your priorities for a price that is attractive, you will likely let some other less important items, e. g. trunk space or rear seat leg room, slide and purchase the car anyway. Furthermore, you may use these minor items as negotiating points to either get one of the priorities or a lower price. Of course the dealership will want to get its priorities, likely a sale and a profit, when negotiating and will have certain items that it won’t move on just as you have terms that you won’t move on. Much like when you walk onto the car lot, and particularly as a subcontractor looking at a contract from a general contractor, or a GC looking at the contract from the owner of a project, a construction contract presented to you is the starting point. When looking at the contract, be sure to have some non-negotiable items in mind when taking a critical eye to the terms of that contract. Some of these terms may be more or less negotiable depending on your experience with the other party to the construction contract. For instance, striking a pay if paid clause may be less important with a paying party with whom you have a 10 year history without payment problems. On the other hand, if it is your first contract with the other party, a stricter list may be required. So, much like a dealer that you know will stand behind its cars, you may be more willing to take more “risk” in entering a construction contract with a trusted/known owner or GC. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Second Circuit affirmed the finding of three occurrences in a highway accident after applying the unfortunate event test. Nat'l Liability & Fire Ins. Co. v. Itzkowitz, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16387 (2nd Cir. Sept. 15, 2015). A dump box attached to a dump truck struck and damaged an overpass. The dump box then separated from the truck and landed in the right lane of the highway. Some thirty seconds to five minutes later, the Itzkowitz vehicle struck the detached dump box. Then, at some point between a few seconds and twenty minutes later, the Hershkowitz (second) vehicle struck the dump box. The insurer for the dump truck owner, National, argued there was one accident, or at most two separate accidents, under the policy. The district court found there were three occurrences and National appealed. 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

Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

June 02, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a prior article, I discussed the point that a personal guarantor cannot escape a contractual requirement of a personal guarantee merely by executing the guarantee as a corporate officer. The recent decision Frieri v. Capital Investment Services, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1189a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) illustrates this point. In this case, a company hired an individual to help grow that company’s business. The contract required the individual to invest $6 Million into a trust in consideration of the company’s president transferring substantial shares of the company into the trust. The objective was that the trust would own the controlling shares of the company. The money was transferred. However, the shares were never placed in the trust and the trust never received controlling interest in the company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board

July 01, 2019 — Kristen E. Andreoli - White and William's Taking Care of Business Blog
On April 10, 2019, the New York City Council adopted Intro No. 1253 – the largest effort in a series of bills known as the Climate Mobilization Act. Intro No. 1253 enacts new regulations to reduce the city’s current largest source of carbon emissions – the operation of buildings. Jared Brey, in his April 25, 2019 article in U.S. News and World Report, “How an Evolving Movement Pushed NYC to Address the Climate Crisis,” states that “[i]n the city, around 70% of carbon emissions are produced by buildings, and around half of all building emissions are produced by just 2% of structures larger than 25,000 square feet that are covered by the bill.” The level of development, population density and relative economic power of a city such as New York have made this bill particularly interesting to other jurisdictions around the globe which may be considering their own similar legislation. In his article, Brey cites David Miller, a former mayor of Toronto and the North American regional director for C40, a group of cities coordinating strategies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement:

“I think what New York has done is globally significant … It’s really a huge step forward, using the city’s powers and influence to directly address a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions without waiting for the national government or the international community to act.”

Several other jurisdictions have already begun to approach this issue, generally either by passing bills or creating task forces to further investigate how to meet stated emissions reduction goals. In 2018, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed an executive order with a stated goal of net-zero carbon emissions within the state by the year 2045. The California State Assembly subsequently passed a bill creating a task force to investigate the potential to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses by both commercial and residential buildings by 2030, although their plan is not due until January 1, 2021. The city of San Jose has implemented new building standards for all new residential buildings to be net-carbon neutral by 2020, and all new commercial buildings must be so by 2030. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristen E. Andreoli, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com

Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements

March 19, 2024 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
It has long been the law in Washington that contracting parties are free to draft contractual indemnity agreements to allocate risk arising from performance of the work, and Courts will generally enforce those agreements as written. This well-settled principle was recently reaffirmed in King County v. CPM Development Corp., dba ICON Materials[1] a decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, wherein one party to an indemnity agreement attempted to evade its contractual obligations by arguing that certain common law indemnity principles supersede the written terms. This appeal followed a multi-week jury trial from which the client and Ahlers Cressman and Sleight legal team, including Lindsay Watkins, Klien Hilliard, and Christina Granquist, obtained a seven-figure judgment in the client’s favor, including an award of all attorneys’ fees and costs. ICON was the general contractor on a Vashon Island Highway Pavement project for King County. Part of the work on the project involved hauling away and disposing of ground milled asphalt (the “millings”) at King County-approved sites. ICON and D&R Excavating Inc., (“D&R”) executed a subcontract for D&R to perform that work. The subcontract incorporated the contract between ICON and King County, including the obligation to stockpile millings only at approved sites. D&R, however, did not obtain the requisite approvals from King County, and placed the millings at various sites on the Island, including locations that King County explicitly rejected. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

November 21, 2017 — Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Originally published by CDJ on August 30, 2017 On August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.” In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

Major Change to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

July 15, 2019 — Lawrence S. Glosser - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Governor Inslee has just signed SB 5600 which results in major changes to the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW 59.18) regarding the eviction process of residential tenants. The changes do not apply to non-residential tenancies which are still governed by RCW 59.12. The new law includes additional protections for tenants and limits the ability of landlords to evict tenants or recover costs for legal proceedings. It also grants judges substantial discretion in eviction hearings whereas judges were previously bound by the express terms of the statute. The major changes to the law are listed below:

A landlord must provide a tenant 14 days’ notice instead of three days’ notice in order to cure default in the payment of overdue rent. The Attorney General’s Office will create a uniform 14-day notice to pay and vacate default form.
Landlords must first apply any payment by a tenant to the rent amount before applying it towards other charges, including fees or other costs.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Glosser may be contacted at larry.glosser@acslawyers.com

Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

November 30, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matt Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
As reported in a recent Hunton Andrews Kurth client alert, Mitigating FCRA Risks in the COVID-19 World (Oct. 23, 2020), consumer litigation claims related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) doubled in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. After a slight decrease in FCRA filings due to court closures and other COVID-19 restrictions, claims will likely resume their previous upward trajectory. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has already seen an uptick in consumer complaints, many of which mention COVID-19 specific keywords. Given the anticipated rise in FCRA complaints, the alert highlights the need for financial institutions and financial services companies to develop FCRA-compliant policies and procedures, including training on those policies and procedures, to mitigate the risk of FCRA-related enforcement actions and litigation claims, particularly in light of the regulatory changes relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Another important risk mitigation tool to consider is insurance, which can offer protection when even the most robust preventative measures fail to prevent an FCRA claim. Coverage for FCRA-related claims—often from directors’ and officers’ (D&O) or errors and omissions (E&O) policies—might be broader than one would initially expect. Policies may cover defense costs involving legal fees, as well as indemnification for damages. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES