Photo of Bart Reed

Bart Reed

Subscribe to Bart Reed's Posts

Bart Reed is a partner in the firm’s Seattle office and practices with the Real Estate and Construction group. With extensive experience in complex commercial and construction law, multistate litigation and ADR (representing clients in 28 states), Bart focuses his practice on construction and design issues and disputes, representing owners, developers, contractors, subcontractors, design professionals and sureties, in diverse matters on both public and private projects. His experience covers a wide range of issues affecting design and construction clients, including contract drafting/negotiation, non-payment and surety claims, construction liens and payment bond claims, design disputes, construction defects, and scheduling issues in the defense and prosecution of delay/impact claims.

Click here for Bart Reed's full bio.

Follow:Read more about Bart ReedBart's Linkedin Profile

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.

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…

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…

Parties involved in a construction project can expect to spend much energy and effort to finalize the terms and conditions of a contract. Although those terms usually carry great weight in any contract dispute, of equal or greater importance can be the parties’ actions and course of dealing during construction. A lack of strict adherence…

Practical Law, a division of Thomson Reuters and an affiliate of Westlaw, now offers another lien law resource for Washington practitioners.  With contributions from Stoel Rives LLP’s Seattle-based construction attorneys Karl Oles, Bart Reed, and Loni Hinton, this new lien resource includes a “flowchart” of important concepts and timelines associated with preserving, perfecting, enforcing, and…

Recently, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals issued an opinion providing guidance regarding the scope of Washington’s frivolous lien statute and the subtle intricacies of preparing and filing a construction lien against a condominium project.   This article provides a high-level overview of how to file a lien against a condominium project in Washington…

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.

Practical Law, a Thomson Reuters company and division of West Publishing Corporation that produces online legal resources for attorneys, is pleased to partner with Stoel Rives LLP to present its Washington Construction Lien Practice Note and Workflow Checklist.

The resources, now published and available through Practical Law’s online services, afford access to valuable content about…

In Nova Contracting, Inc. v. City of Olympia, No. 94711-2 (Wash. Sept. 29, 2018), the Washington Supreme Court, sitting en banc, ruled in favor of a municipality on the issue of whether the general contractor complied with a contract’s notice of claim provision.  Relying on Mike M. Johnson, Inc. v. Spokane County, 150 Wn.2d 375, 78 P.3d 161 (2003), the court in Nova Contracting held that a broad notice of claim provision (waiving “any claims” for noncompliance) (a) mandates written, rather than actual, notice of claims and (b) applies not only to claims for cost of work performed, but also to claims for (i) expectancy and consequential damages and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  Slip op. at 2-3, 15.

The case arose from certain disputes between the City of Olympia (the “City”) and a contractor (“NOVA”) in connection with a public works contract in which the contractor agreed to replace an aging cement culvert. The contract contained a “notice of protest” provision from the Washington State Department of Transportation’s standard specifications.  This provision required the contractor to “‘give a signed written notice of protest’ ‘[i]mmediately’ if it ‘disagree[d] with anything required in a change order, another written order, or an oral order from the [City] Engineer, including any direction, instruction, interpretation, or determination by the Engineer.’” Id. at 1-2.

During Seattle’s current construction boom, general contractors and subcontractors may be concentrating more on finalizing work on their projects than on worrying about the niceties of their construction contract documents. It is no less prudent now, however, for the parties to remain aware of their contractual rights and responsibilities—especially those tied to payment.  One payment term commonly contained in subcontract agreements is the contingent payment provision, which, depending on its terms, may pose an interesting challenge to construction lien rights.

Contingent payment provisions (e.g., “pay-if-paid” or “pay-when-paid” clauses) are frequently inserted in subcontract agreements. The hallmark of pay-if-paid clauses is usually “condition precedent” language, where the general contractor and subcontractor expressly agree that the general contractor’s receipt of payment from the owner is a condition precedent to payment by the general contractor to the subcontractor.  Under this clause, the subcontractor assumes the risk of non-payment by the owner.  On the other hand, pay-when-paid clauses have been interpreted to delay the subcontractor’s entitlement to payment until the owner pays, or for some reasonable time if the owner does not pay.