SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

October 31, 2010 — Michael Bradford in Business Insurance

ATLANTA—Negligent construction that results in damage to surrounding property constitutes an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled.

 In a 6-1 opinion Monday in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Hathaway Development Co. Inc., the Georgia high court upheld a lower court ruling that the general contractor’s claim for damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty plumbing work was covered. 

The ruling on construction defects is the latest in number of such cases across the United States



Read Full Story...



Reprinted courtesy of Michael Bradford of Business Insurance.

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

---

When is a “Notice of Completion” on a California Private Works Construction Project Valid? Why Does It Matter for My Collection Rights?

January 27, 2020 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
What is a Notice of Completion? A “notice of completion” is a document recorded by the owner of property where construction work was performed. Specifically, it is recorded at the Office of the County Recorder in the County where the work was performed. The notice of completion tells the world at large that the construction project is complete. It also triggers the deadlines for those who have not been paid to make their claims for payment. Is an Owner of a California Private Works Project Required to Record a Notice of Completion? No, there is no requirement that an owner of a California private works construction project record a Notice of Completion. However, there are consequences which depend on whether an Owner elects to record the notice or not. For My Collection Rights, Why Does it Matter Whether a Notice of Completion Has Been Recorded? The date of recording of a valid notice of completion sets the deadline for those who have not been paid for work performed and materials supplied to a California construction project to pursue such important collection remedies as the “mechanics lien”, the “stop payment notice” and the “payment bond claim.” These are very powerful collection remedies for those who have not been paid. If the deadline to pursue these remedies is missed by a claimant, then the claimant’s right to pursue these remedies is also missed. One of these remedies, the mechanics lien, will enable the claimant to sell the owner’s property where the work was performed in order to get paid. 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

---

Statute of Limitations and Bad Faith Claims: Factors to Consider

May 16, 2022 — Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
How much time do our clients have to bring a bad faith action against an insurer? Although we are not frequently asked this question, it is one that we constantly analyze before asserting a bad faith claim. To answer this question, we look to the statute of limitations, which is a law passed by a state legislative body that sets the maximum amount of time for a party to bring a claim based upon a particular cause of action. For policyholders, knowing which statute of limitations applies to their bad faith claim is critical because it indicates whether it is possible to initiate legal proceedings. In addition, it determines the amount in damages available in case of a successful resolution. Statute of Limitations in Breach of Contract vs. Tort Claims One key determinant of a statute of limitations for bad faith is whether the claim is brought as a tort or a breach of contract action. The consequence of framing bad faith as a tort is that a policyholder is not just limited to contract damages. The policyholder can also receive recourse for emotional distress, pain, suffering, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other damages that the court may consider appropriate. Unfortunately, however, not every jurisdiction allows plaintiffs to bring bad faith actions as tort claims. While, for example, courts in California, Colorado, and Connecticut allow bad faith claims sounding in tort, courts in jurisdictions such as Tennessee do not. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com

---

Court Rules Planned Development of Banning Ranch May Proceed

June 10, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (filed 5/20/2015, No. G049691), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, held the Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of Newport Beach for the partial development of Banning Ranch complied with California environmental protection statutes and local ordinances. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), a city desiring to approve or carry out a project that may have significant effect on the environment must prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) designed to provide the public with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project will have on the environment. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for heightened protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (“ESHA”) defined as any “area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.” In 2006, the City of Newport Beach adopted a General Plan for the physical development of the city. The plan specifically identifies Banning Ranch as having significant value as a wildlife habitat and open space resource for citizens. The general plan includes a primary goal of complete preservation of Banning Ranch as open space. To the extent the primary goal cannot be achieved, the plan identifies a secondary goal allowing limited development of Banning Ranch “to fund preservation of the majority of the property as open space.” The plan also requires the City to coordinate any development with the state and federal agencies. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Resulting Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

April 06, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court confirmed that there was no coverage for damage to the policyholder's building caused by a large volume of water. Praetorian Ins. Co. v. Arabia Shrine Ctr. Houston, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20186 (S.D. Texas Feb. 19, 2016). The damage occurred when water began seeping through the baseboards of the Shrine. Employees saw a large amount of water entering the building. Eventually, the city shut off a water main valve. It was later determined that an 8 inch diameter fire suppression metal pipe failed at the elbow, causing over one million gallons of water to be released into the building. Damages were estimated at nearly $1.7 million. Clean up and repair costs amounted to $237,156. 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

---

What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy

September 12, 2022 — Martha B. Chovanes & Laurie A. Stanziale - ConsensusDocs
While contractor bankruptcies have long been an issue in the construction industry, in the aftermath of COVID-19 and the resultant labor, material and supply-chain delays, contractor bankruptcies are of even greater concern. Many construction contracts attempt to protect the upstream party from a bankruptcy filing of its contractor or subcontractor by providing for an automatic right to terminate a contract, referred to as “ipso facto” clauses. However, such clauses are generally unenforceable as bankruptcy laws, specifically Section 365(e) of Title 11 of the United States Code, protect the party filing for bankruptcy (the “Debtor”) from unilateral termination of the contract by the non-Debtor party. What is an “Ipso Facto” clause? An ipso facto clause is a provision in an agreement which permits its termination by one party due to the bankruptcy, insolvency or financial condition of the other party. Reprinted courtesy of Martha B. Chovanes, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Chovanes may be contacted at mchovanes@foxrothschild.com Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
With all the talk of problems with drywall coming from China, one company wants to send drywall in the other direction. USG introduced its “Adamant Panel Board” (later Sheetrock) in 1917. But while USG has been a leader in the drywall market in North America, only about 20% of its sales are outside North America. USG is partnering with Boral Ltd., an Australian building materials manufacturer. Earlier this year, USG sold manufacturing and distribution of certain products to the German company Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft. Knauf has sold drywall in the United States that was manufactured in China and found to exit corrosive fumes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---