A contractor’s duty to provide a safe workplace includes a duty to comply with safety regulations about worksite conditions, worker equipment, and work methods. Those regulations are enforced by the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (“L&I”), which has authority to inspect worksites and to impose fines and stop work orders.
In a recent case,
Construction projects, both big and small, pose a host of safety risks and challenges and, as a result, are subject to a number of regulations designed to limit the probability and severity of jobsite accidents. In my latest article for the Daily Journal of Commerce, I discuss common violations, some recent regulatory changes, best
Microsoft Corporation recently announced plans to revitalize its 500-acre Redmond campus with dramatic renovation and expansion work to be completed over the next five to seven years. The project will include the addition of 18 new buildings, 6.7 million square feet of renovated office space, $150 million in transportation infrastructure improvements, public spaces, sports fields
Negotiating construction contract language in 2017 can have important consequences years into the future. The obligations and rights arising from one often overlooked clause, that addressing contractual “third-party beneficiaries,” i.e. “a person or entity who, though not a party to the contract, stands to benefit from the contract’s performance,” can vary considerably from state to
In a rare opportunity to interpret Oregon’s statutory requirements for licensure of architects, the Oregon Supreme Court recently held that the development of master plans constitutes the “practice of architecture”—even if constructible drawings and specifications are not contemplated or produced.
The case, Twist Architecture & Design, Inc. v. Oregon Board of Architect Examiners, 361 Or 507, 395 P3d 574 (2017), stemmed from a determination by the Board of Architect Examiners (the “Board”) that Seattle based firm Twist Architecture & Design, Inc. and two of its principals who were not licensed in Oregon (collectively “Twist”) engaged in the unlawful practice of architecture and unlawfully represented themselves as architects in violation of ORS 671.020—Oregon’s statute containing the licensure requirement—when they prepared master plans for three proposed commercial developments in Oregon.
The inclusion of an “as-is” clause in a contract for a real estate transaction has led courts in Oregon to allow parties to a deal to allocate the risk as to the property differently than through the historic concept of “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware), which permitted a seller to shift the obligation to
Portland real estate is booming and Portland is now on the map for many national and international developers for the first time. This success, while enviable, is not without some negative consequences, as evidenced by increasing housing costs and congestion.
As Portland anticipates the arrival of even more people, it is trying to figure out where to put those new arrivals and how to preserve and enhance quality of life for both new and existing residents. Large-scale City planning efforts such as the 2012 Portland Plan and 2017 Comprehensive Plan reflect a recognition that not everyone has enjoyed the benefits of past prosperity and public investment, and that the City will seek to be more intentional and inclusive going forward.
An emerging redevelopment area offers an opportunity to try new things and develop differently this time. The Broadway Corridor redevelopment area is 24 acres located between the Pearl District and Old Town/Chinatown. The area is centrally located in downtown Portland, has freeway access and is served both by Amtrak, via historic Union Station, and by TriMet’s light rail. The “pearl” of this redevelopment area is the 14-acre U.S. Post Office site, bordered by NW 9th Avenue, NW Hoyt Street, NW Broadway and NW Lovejoy and purchased by the City of Portland in 2016.
The City purchased the Post Office site for almost $90,000,000 and understandably is carefully shepherding this public investment. The City’s Broadway Corridor Framework Plan provides a conceptual “framework” for future development of a 24-acre area including the Post Office site, but actual development will require a new type of public-private partnership and substantial further refinement of the plan, with the City committed to recovering its financial investment.
Practical Law, a Thomson Reuters Company and division of West Publishing Corporation that produces online resources for attorneys across myriad legal topics, recently invited members of the Construction & Design Group of Stoel Rives’ Portland and Seattle offices to provide construction lien resources for Oregon and Washington. According to Kate Kruk, Practical Law’s Content Acquisition
Parties spend significant time negotiating insurance provisions for protection in the event they face claims related to defective construction, but those protections can be rendered worthless if the wrong insurance forms are used. In my recent Daily Journal of Commerce article, I look at one particularly troublesome provision – the “professional services” endorsement – and
A Sacramento bankruptcy judge issued a hard hitting judgment against Bank of America for the way it handled a single residential foreclosure in Lincoln, California. Referring to the famous novelist whose works evoke oppressive and nightmarish characteristics, Judge Klein wrote: “Franz Kafka lives… [and] he works at Bank of America.” This ruling has been widely discussed for the hefty award recovered by the plaintiff. In addition to the harsh ruling, Judge Klein memorialized a rule that was not previously addressed in case law – the affirmative duty of an attorney to search bankruptcy filings to confirm whether a violation of a stay order was likely. While this rule could arguably be characterized as dicta, because there were no claims against the attorneys in the suit, all attorneys should take note of this rule or risk serious consequences. The relevant facts are summarized below.
In 2008, the plaintiffs entered into a loan with the expectation that they could refinance or modify the loan immediately after closing. However, after closing, Bank of America said that it would not consider a loan modification request unless and until the homeowners ceased making payment. Accordingly, in 2009, the homeowners defaulted on their loan payments, which triggered a series of troublesome events. During the course of the ensuing years, Bank of America strung along the homeowners with multiple “lost” loan modification requests, while at the same time pursuing foreclosure.