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.

Interpreting Utah’s former mechanic’s lien statute, the Utah Court of Appeals has held that a contractor that contracted with and provided construction services for a developer could not maintain a valid mechanic’s lien on property owned by a third-party landowner. In Reeve & Associates, Inc. v. Tanner, 2015 UT App 166 (2015), the owners of

Parties to construction contracts take notice:  the legislature enacted new consequences and contract restrictions to Oregon’s Prompt Pay Acts starting in 2012.               

On public improvement contracts first advertised or solicited on or after May 28, 2012, the newly revised Act (a) changes the interest penalty rate for a prime contractor’s failure to make timely payment

 A recent Utah Supreme Court decision could result in significant benefits to some policyholders in Utah’s construction industry. The case, Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Unigard Insurance Co., 2012 UT 1, concerned a fight between two insurers about how to split the costs of defending a lawsuit brought against their policyholder, Cloud Nine. For