SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

September 07, 2020 — Makenna Miller & Jeffrey Dennis - Newmeyer Dillion
Earlier this year, Assemblyman Edwin Chau (D-Monterey Park) introduced Assembly Bill 2320. AB 2320, if passed, would require any business that contracts with the state and has access to records containing personal information protected under the state’s Information Practices Act (IPA) to maintain cyber insurance coverage. Information covered under the IPA includes names, social security numbers, physical descriptions, home addresses, home telephone numbers, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. Requiring contractors to maintain cyber insurance will likely both shift the costs of cyberattacks from taxpayers to the private sector, while also encouraging robust cyber security practices among businesses of all sizes. While the bill has not yet passed, businesses will be best served by implementing and improving cybersecurity practices now in order to attain lowest premium rates in the future. Incentivizing Best Practices With the adoption of AB 2320, businesses will be incentivized to increase their security posture in order to receive lower premiums from insurers. Simultaneously, insurers will be incentivized to mandate best practices from their insureds in order to mitigate their risk of having to pay out on cyber insurance policies. Thus, cyber insurance will work as a vehicle to increase best practices in businesses and subsequently decrease vulnerabilities to cyberattacks. Reprinted courtesy of Makenna Miller, Newmeyer Dillion and Jeffrey Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion Ms. Miller may be contacted at makenna.miller@ndlf.com Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

October 07, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Keith Bremer, senior partner of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP, has a feature article in the Fall 2016 issue of Construction Claims Magazine, and discusses how the Miller Act has been slowly changing: “This is a complex piece of legislation that is evolving and has been decided differently depending on the federal district a case is heard in,” Bremer wrote. Bremer explained how the courts continue to rule differently in regards to the Miller Act. “Currently it seems jurisdictions are split on the issue of whether or not subcontractors should be allowed to bring both a federal and state cause of action stemming from payment by a Miller Act bond. Therefore, any surety writing these bonds should pay strict attention to how broad or narrow the federal district that would hear the claim has interpreted the scope of a subcontractor’s remedies for Miller Act claims.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

June 06, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly

The insured’s request for a defense when sued in a construction defect action was denied under the owned property exclusion and the alienated property exclusion in1777 Lafayette Partners v. Golden Gate Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48562 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2011).



In 1999, Lafayette Partners purchased an abandoned walnut processing factory to convert into living and working units. The property was developed into a rental property from 2000-2001, and thereafter rented. In May 2003, Lafayette Partners entered into a sales agreement with Wolff Enterprises LLC. The sale closed in February 2005. Wolff then converted the rental units into condominiums.



In December 2007, the Walnut Factory Owners Association sued Wolff for construction defects. In Lafayette Partners was added to the suit in 2009. The suit alleged a variety of defective conditions, including the roofs, exteriors, windows, electrical , plumbing, and mechanical components and systems.



Read the full story…

  

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Job Opening Rise in October

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
There was a significant increase in the number of open construction jobs during October, according to a report for the National Association of Home Builders. Working from preliminary data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the NAHB said that the number of open positions reached “levels and rates last seen in 2007.” As the data is still preliminary, the NAHB noted that the conclusions should be taken with caution. While there was a spike in job openings, the hiring of people to fill these positions hasn’t caught up with it, and there was a small decline in hires. But to return to the good news, there was also a drop in layoffs in that same period. Through October, about 8,000 people have been hired in the construction sector. The NAHB notes that this does not correspond with the recent increases with home construction. They suggest that “it may be the case that startups in the home building and remodeling sectors are being missed by the establishment survey.” Another possibility they raise is that already-employed construction workers are simply working more hours. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

July 30, 2015 — William L. Porter – The Porter Law Group Bulletin
Federal public work construction projects are unique in that there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available. Furthermore, although a remedy is available by proceeding against the original contractor’s payment bond under a federal law known as the “Miller Act” and its corresponding Federal Regulations (40 USCS 3131 et seq. and 48 CFR 28.101-1 et seq.), this remedy is not available to all subcontractors or suppliers. In addition, there are circumstances where a different form of security can be substituted for the payment bond (40 USCS 3131(b)(2)). Among those who generally cannot sue on the Miller Act Payment Bond are third-tier subcontractors and suppliers to suppliers. (See J.W. Bateson Company v. Board of Trustees, 434 U.S. 586 (1978)). As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor may bring a lawsuit against the bond company providing the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first tier subcontractor may bring such an action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A condominium association in the Aspen, Colorado area will likely go to trial over its claims of construction defects, reports Aspen Daily News Online. According to the suit, siding and trim were improperly manufactured and installed. The homeowners engaged experts to determine the appropriate remedy, and then sought bids from contractors. Shaw Construction, which built the condos, responded with a counteroffer. Chris Rhody, the lawyer for the homeowners, said there was “a big difference” between the association’s request and the builder’s counteroffer. According to Mr. Rhody, settlement is still possible, but seems unlikely. A date for the trial is yet to be set. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Don’t Waive Too Much In Your Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

December 22, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In the past few years, the Virginia General Assembly has, with certain caveats, precluded pre-furnishing waiver of mechanic’s lien rights. While this essentially outlawed the types of mechanic’s lien waiver clauses that pervaded construction contracts in Virginia, the key to the previous sentence is “pre-furnishing.” What the General Assembly left intact were the usual waivers of mechanic’s lien rights typically required to be provided to Owners and others in the payment chain in exchange for payment. These lien waivers come in a few “flavors” from conditional to unconditional, partial to full. Their terms usually include an acknowledgement of receipt of payment (we’ll get to this later), and a statement that the one seeking payment knows of no possible claims by lower tier subcontractors and then waives all mechanic’s lien rights against the property for work performed and included in the request for payment. Often over my years as a Virginia construction attorney, I have noticed that these waivers are often signed without comment or review. They are just part of the process and more often than not are not even an issue for most projects. Of course, if they are an issue they can be a big one, and their terms can come back to bite a claimant that has not properly vetted them. The first potential issue is waiving lien rights while acknowledging receipt prior to actual receipt of the check or wire. Many of the waiver forms that are out there list a payment amount, or possibly simply state that the waiver is in exchange for some small payment, and then state “receipt of which is acknolwedged” or something similar. The issue here is that receipt may not have happened yet because these lien waivers are submitted as part of the payment package in order to get paid in the first place. In short, should you sign the waiver prior to payment, you may have acknowledged a non-event and in the event of non-payment have a written document stating that you waived your claim to a lien for that money. What a court would do with this, I am unsure, but why risk it? My advice, be sure your waiver is contingent on actual clearance of payment as well as receipt. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Arbitration Provisions Are Challenging To Circumvent

May 13, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Arbitration provisions are enforceable and they are becoming more challenging to circumvent, especially if one of the parties to the arbitration agreement wants to arbitrate a dispute versus litigate a dispute. Remember this when agreeing to an arbitration provision as the forum for dispute resolution in your contract. There is not a one-size-fits-all model when it comes to arbitration provisions and how they are drafted. But, there is a very strong public policy in favor of honoring a contractual arbitration provision because this is what the parties agreed to as the forum to resolve their disputes. By way of example, in Austin Commercial, L.P. v. L.M.C.C. Specialty Contractors, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D925a (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), a subcontractor and prime contactor entered into a consultant agreement that contained the following arbitration provision:

Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof shall be subject to the dispute resolution procedures, if any, set out in the Prime Contract between [Prime Contractor] and the [Owner]. Should the Prime Contract contain no specific requirement for the resolution of disputes or should the [Owner] not be involved in the dispute, any such controversy or claim shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association then prevailing, and judgment upon the award by the Arbitrator(s) shall be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof.

The prime contract between the owner and prime contractor did not require arbitration. 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

---