Originally published as an Op-Ed by the Oregon Daily Journal of Commerce on December 15, 2022.
A common feature of construction contracts is a clause requiring formal mediation of disputes relating to the project. Sometimes the clause is aspirational, merely “requiring” that the parties consider mediation. Other times, however, the clause is designed as a binding
Originally published by the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce on November 3, 2022.
In a 5-4 decision, the Washington Supreme Court recently ruled in Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc. that a contract provision providing a one-year limitation period for filing a construction defect lawsuit was “unconscionable” and therefore unenforceable.
The court’s ruling revives a
In a very recently published case dealing with issues of first impression in California, here, the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles determined that the disgorgement penalty under BPC 7031(b) triggers a one-year statute of limitations given that it is a penalty, and the cause of action accrues from either the completion or cessation
The Construction Section of the Washington State Bar Association, in partnership with Stoel Rives, will present its annual full day seminar (via webinar) on June 12. Co-chaired by Bart Reed (Partner at Stoel Rives), Brett Hill (Partner at Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight), and Ron English (Retired General Counsel of the Seattle Public Schools), the webinar
In late 2019, the Washington State Department of Transportation and Seattle Tunnel Partners (STP) engaged in a nine-week trial of claims arising from construction of the new State Route 99 tunnel under downtown Seattle. One major issue for the jury was whether STP had encountered “differing site conditions” – unknown underground conditions that differ materially
The biggest construction project in Seattle in recent years has been the replacement of a seismically compromised waterfront viaduct with a tunnel carrying State Route 99 under downtown. The project was delayed for about two years while the contractor repaired damage to its tunnel boring machine. The contractor claimed that the damage was caused by
On February 11, 2019, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Woodley v. Style Corp. d/b/a Servpro of Shoreline/Woodinville, No. 77352-6-I (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2019). The case highlights the care that should be exercised in filing a lien claim for services furnished to improve a condominium and the consequences that may befall a claimant under Washington’s frivolous lien claim statute, RCW 60.04.081.
The case arose from water intrusion at a unit in the Bellevue Park condominium complex. After discovery of the condition, the condominium’s property management company contacted Servpro and executed a work authorization for the contractor to clean up the water and perform restoration work. Servpro was not paid for its work and filed a claim of lien. The lien named the association as the indebted person, recited that it applied to the 20 specific units and a common storage area of the condominium, and named each owner of the 20 units but did not allocate a specific portion of the total debt to each unit.
In the recently issued but unpublished decision Reed v. SunRun, Inc. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC498002, Feb. 2, 2018), the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a solar power purchase agreement (“PPA”) provider that only sells solar energy to homeowners is not required to be a licensed California contractor under certain
On July 6, 2017, the Washington Supreme Court confirmed that the equitable rule announced in Olympic Steamship—providing for attorney fees where the insurer compels the insured to take legal action—applies to performance bond sureties on public projects.[1] In King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, the Court affirmed the trial court’s award of over $14 million in attorney fees and costs against sureties of a public works contract.[2]
In 2006, King County contracted with a joint venture of three construction companies to build the piping/conveyance system for the new Brightwater wastewater treatment project. The joint venture contractor submitted a performance bond from five surety companies. Under the contract, if the contractor was in default, the sureties were obligated to step in and remedy the default. When the project was delayed, King County declared the contractor in default and asked the sureties to cure. They refused, claiming that the contractor was not in default.
Rejecting an argument that the ADA preempts all contractual claims for indemnity and contribution, the Ninth Circuit recently upheld a public owner’s right to seek contribution for damages arising out of ADA violations caused by the designer and contractor of a transportation facility. See City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. (here).