States

Subscribe to States via RSS

The importance of carefully drafting, and following, a construction contract’s termination provisions was made clear for project owners and contractors by a recent Washington Supreme Court decision, Conway Construction Co. v. City of Puyallup. The city contracted with Conway to build a major roadway, but when the city lost confidence in Conway’s work, it issued…

In its March 11, 2021 opinion, Division Three of the Washington Court of Appeals considered whether the 90-day period to record a claim of lien is extended by a contractor performing work after substantial completion to correct nonconforming work – usually referred to as “warranty work.”  In the case of Brashear Electric, Inc. v. Norcal Properties, LLC, the Court strictly construed the statutory term “repairing” to exclude the contractor’s correction of its own work and rejected the notion that warranty work extended the 90-day timeframe to file a lien claim.

Norcal Properties, LLC (“Norcal”) and Blue Bridge Properties, LLC (“Blue”) own adjacent properties.  Norcal and Blue separately contracted with Vandervert Construction (“Vandervert”) to construct a building on each property.  The prime agreements’ substantive provisions were identical.  Vandervert subcontracted with Brashear Electric, Inc. (“Brashear”) to work on both projects.

Under the prime agreements, Vandervert promised to correct nonconforming work up to a year after substantial completion.  Vandervert’s subcontracts with Brashear required Brashear to assume the prime agreements’ warranty provisions.

On November 6, 2020, the Oregon Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OR-OSHA”) published final temporary rules for workplace safety protections specific to COVID-19. Our alert about the new rules is available here.

Among other requirements, the new rules require employers to adopt a COVID-19 Infection Notification policy for notifying exposed and affected employees of…

Among the many effects on the U.S. economy of the COVID-19 pandemic, construction projects that started before it began but were halted in its aftermath may be slow to resume or be abandoned altogether thanks to funding issues. Contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers feel immense pressure to protect and preserve their rights to payment for work…

California Assembly Bill 1867 (signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 9, 2020) and Senate Bill 1383 (signed on September 17, 2020) significantly expand the rights of California employees to both paid and unpaid leave.  In addition, and especially as they relate to Senate Bill 1383, these laws will require California employers to promptly revise their policies and procedures when it comes to reviewing employee requests for unpaid leave.

Assembly Bill 1867

To recap, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) provides that employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of paid sick leave for reasons related to COVID-19.  FFCRA, however, applies only to employers with fewer than 500 employees.  Like many ordinances adopted after the passage of FFCRA, AB 1867 attempts to fill the gap left by FFCRA by applying to employers with 500 or more employees.

AB 1867 fills this gap in two ways.  First, it creates new California Labor Code section 248, which mirrors Governor Gavin Newsom’s prior Executive Order N-51-20.  Section 248 requires entities with 500 or more employees to provide their “food sector workers” with up to 80 hours of “COVID-19 food sector supplemental paid sick leave.”  Second, it also creates new Labor Code section 248.1.  This section applies more broadly than section 248 as it requires that employers with 500 or more employees provide all employees with up to 80 hours of “COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave.”

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…

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.

Several weeks have passed since Governor Brown formally ordered all Oregonians to “Stay Home, Save Lives,” and owners, project designers, and contractors have all had the opportunity to absorb its initial impacts.  While many stakeholders were initially relieved that construction projects in Oregon could apparently continue—subject to the various social distancing and travel restrictions described…

State and local officials across the country have responded to COVID-19 with various executive orders and restrictions on businesses to help flatten the curve of the pandemic. Each state’s response opens the door for potential impacts on projects commencing or under construction, and on the parties involved with those projects.

To assist clients and friends,…