In Conway Construction Company v. City of Puyallup, No. 80649-1-1 (May 4, 2020), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division 1, adopted Oregon’s Shelter Products, Inc. v. Steelwood Construction, Inc., precluding certain claims for defects in termination cases and limiting the justification for termination to those listed in the termination notice.  It also held that Washington’s settlement statute protecting public owners, RCW 39.04.240, trumps an attorney fee provision in a contract.

In Conway, the City of Puyallup (“City”) contracted with Conway Construction Company (“Conway”) to construct certain roadway improvements.  During the project, the City became concerned about construction defects.  The City issued notices to Conway expressing its concerns.  The City also observed unsafe work conditions and reported the safety violations to the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries.  After issuing a series of notices, the City terminated Conway because of its defective work and safety violations.

Many building developers utilize a single purpose entity limited liability company (an “LLC”) to purchase and develop property, such as an apartment complex, a subdivision, or a shopping center. Generally, an LLC’s debts, whether incurred or judicially imposed, belong only to the LLC, not to its members.  However, an LLC’s individual member may be subject to personal liability under the doctrine of alter ego liability if (1) the individual and the LLC share a unity of interest and ownership such that the separate personalities of the two no longer exist, and (2) treating the debts as the LLC’s alone would impose an inequitable result that rewards the bad faith of the individual.  A recent legal decision from Southern California highlights the dangers of disregarding an LLC’s corporate formalities during any construction project.

Many times I hear from people who want to “save money” and serve as their own “owner-builder” under the exemption to the California Contractor’s Licensing law, which generally requires that any “construction” work over $500 to be performed by a licensed California contractor in the absence of an exemption.  (Bus. & Prof. Code section

Home improvement, - close-up of handyman laying tile

A common insurance question asked by our owner/developer clients when they discover that their completed project has defects is whether their own insurance will cover the cost to fix the defect or any damage from the defect.  While trying hard not to sound like the proverbial lawyer, we often have to say “it depends.”  What

It’s been more than 20 years since the LEED standard was introduced, and green building has now become a significant percentage of new U.S. commercial real estate construction.  The benefits of green building techniques and products have made LEED certification a hot commodity and changed the construction industry.  But there are also risks involved if

Oregon’s law on statutes of limitation and/or repose periods on construction claims is complex and ever-changing.  A recent Oregon Supreme Court ruling has introduced yet another instance of differing time limits on construction defect claims. In my recent article for the Daily Journal of Commerce, I discuss Schell v. The Schollander Companies, Inc. and

In Shell v. Schollander Companies, Inc., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed a line of appellate decisions distinguishing between defect claims arising out of construction performed for an owner and defect claims arising out of an owner’s purchase of an existing structure.  In Schollander, the homeowner sought recovery for defects in the construction of

It will happen to almost every contractor at some point — an owner or project developer will try to sue you.  Hopefully your insurer agrees you are covered, and you’ve dodged a bullet. But if your insurer tells you that you are not covered, things get sticky.  One common strategy is for the parties to

Subcontractor default is a construction project nightmare that can result in significant additional costs and delay completion of the project. But there are two chief options to protect against such risks — performance bonds and subcontractor default insurance.  In my recent article for the Daily Journal of Commerce, I outline the unique characteristics of

In my recent article, "Contractor Not Entitled to Setoff Costs of Repairing Subcontractor’s Defective Work," I discuss the Oregon Court of Appeals’ decision that a contractor cannot terminate its subcontractor for convenience and setoff costs incurred in repairing the subcontractor’s defective work (affirming the trial court’s decision).

Read the full article, here.

"Contractor Not