My partner, Scott Kaplan,  discusses the recent Oregon Court of Appeals in FountainCourt Homeowners’ Ass’n v. FountainCourt Development, LLC case in the Daily Journal of Commerce.  On August 6, the Oregon Court of Appearls, handed down a decision making clear that standard form liability insurance policies cover construction defect claims so long any…

In my recent article, “Provision Providing for Early Accrual of Statute of Limitations Held Inapplicable,” I discuss the Oregon Supreme Court’s reversal of a trial court’s decision that, by the terms of the parties’ contract, plaintiff’s tort claims accrued on the date of substantial completion and were time-barred.

Read the full article, here.

“Provision…

The Idaho Supreme Court recently determined in Idaho Power Company v. New Energy Two, LLC, No. 40882-2013 (Idaho June 17, 2014), that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction to interpret or enforce contracts when given the authority by the parties. In May 2010, IPC and the defendants entered into two energy contracts that were to be completed by a date certain. In advance of the operational dates, the defendants notified IPC of events they claimed were force majeure. Markedly, the defendants’ claim was that the decision-making process of the PUC itself, or the alleged lack thereof, was the force majeure event causing lenders to be “unwilling to lend in Idaho pending the outcome” of the PUC proceedings. IPC filed petitions with the PUC seeking a ruling that there was no force majeure event(s), and that IPC could terminate the contracts. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss that was denied, and the Idaho Supreme Court heard the issue on a permissive appeal.

California has held for at least a decade that in order for there to be insurance coverage under a standard Comprehensive General Liability for a claim arising out of a construction project, including a duty to defend by the insurer, there must be damage to other property, not solely to the property on which the insured worked. (See F&H Construction v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 364.) The recent decision of Regional Steel Corporation v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation (May 16, 2014, No. BC464209) __ Cal.App.2d. __ [2014 WL 2643242] (Regional Steel), in the California Court of Appeal highlights a not uncommon problem in construction actions, and several ramifications for owner/general contractors (GCs) to consider at project inception to alleviate and mitigate these issues are outlined below.

In my latest Daily Journal of Commerce Construction column, I discuss some the potential risks for project teams to consider when drafting construction agreements under the current version of the LEED building rating program (3.0).  Version 3.0 provides for Minimum Program Requirements ("MPRs") which a project must comply with to be certified under the LEED…

A question left open in Stoel Rives’ recent Washington lien law treatise relates to the lien rights of employee benefit plans. The rights granted in RCW 60.04.011(4) (where benefit plans are included in the definition of “furnishing labor”) were called into question by two Washington Supreme Court decisions barring employee benefit plans from pursuing lien-like…

In my latest Daily Journal of Commerce Construction column, I discuss the construction lien rights for architects and engineers in Washington and Oregon.  In these states, once construction lien rights have arisen the law requires further acts (such as sending notices to the project owner or recording formal notices within specific time frames) to keep…

In my latest Daily Journal of Commerce Construction column, I discuss insurance jargon in contracts and use Commercial General Liability or “CGL” policies as an example.  The terms “bodily injury,” “personal or advertising injury,” and “property damage” all have specific meanings in CGL policies.  Since this language is not always intuitive, it is best to…