Construction Law Blog

Blog Disclaimer: The content provided on this website is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The information provided is intended for general information which may or may not reflect the most current developments. Read More

- OR -

SUBCONTRACTORS ON WASHINGTON PUBLIC PROJECTS CAN NOW GET THEIR RETAINAGE MONEY SOONER

Date: July 20, 2017  /  Author: Brett M. Hill  /  Categories: Out of the Ordinary, Government Contracts, Contracting, Construction News and Notes, Memorable Quotes, Rants and Raves, Recent Legislation, Claims  /  Keywords: SUBCONTRACTORS ON WASHINGTON PUBLIC PROJECTS CAN NOW GET THEIR RETAINAGE MONEY SOONER 1  /  Comments (0)

Subcontractors on public projects in Washington State will no longer be required to wait until final acceptance of the project to get their retainage money. A new statute, which goes into effect on July 23, 2017 and applies only to Washington public projects, will allow subcontractors to get their retainage sooner.

Under prior law, a subcontractor could only get its retainage prior to final acceptance if the general contractor provided a retainage bond to the public owner to secure a release of the general contractor’s retainage and the subcontractor then provided a similar retainage bond to the general contractor in the amount of its own retainage. If the general contractor decided to not provide a retainage bond to the owner, the subcontractor would be forced to wait until final acceptance of the project before it could get paid its retainage.

A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

Date: June 1, 2017  /  Author: John P. Ahlers  /  Categories: Out of the Ordinary, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Construction News and Notes, Memorable Quotes, Rants and Raves, Delay Claims, Damages, Claims  /  Keywords: A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily 2  /  Comments (0)

There has been a perception among some litigators that arbitration is more expensive than court due to several factors.  Among them:

  • The “upfront” costs are higher in that filing fees for arbitration exceed those in court.  Arbitrators are paid, whether hourly or a flat rate, and the three arbitration panels can become very expensive.
  • Some arbitration clauses preserve statutory discovery rights, basically defeating the advantage of a simplified arbitration process.  Discovery wars are extremely expensive.  Depositions are the most costly of discovery, and in arbitration, as opposed to court, depositions are limited or do not exist.
  • Some arbitration clauses integrate the statutory rules of civil procedure, making arbitration almost equivalent to litigation.  These types of clauses do the parties no favors

General Construction v. Grant County PUD: Chalkboard Notice is Invalid and Engineer Cannot Waive Notice Requirements

Date: May 30, 2017  /  Author: Brett M. Hill  /  Categories: Change Orders, Claims, Damages, Rants and Raves, Memorable Quotes, Construction News and Notes, Contracting, Notice Issues  /  Keywords: General Construction v. Grant County PUD: Chalkboard Notice is Invalid and Engineer Cannot Waive Notice Requirements 3  /  Comments (0)

 

I previously posted a blog about the General Construction v. Grant County PUD case and the Court of Appeals’ rulings regarding notice and claim procedures.[i]  The General Construction case is also noteworthy for two other issues that were raised in that case.[ii]  The first issue involved whether a contractual written notice requirement is satisfied when the notice is provided on a chalkboard only.  The second noteworthy issue is whether the Public Utility District’s (“PUD”) own in-house engineer could waive the contractual notice and claim procedures in the PUD’s contract.

General Construction v. Grant County PUD: Courts Continue to Struggle with Mike M. Johnson Case

Date: May 24, 2017  /  Author: Brett M. Hill  /  Categories: Notice Issues, Contracting, Construction News and Notes, Memorable Quotes, Rants and Raves, Delay Claims, Claims, Change Orders  /  Keywords: General Construction v. Grant County PUD: Courts Continue to Struggle with Mike M. Johnson Case 4  /  Comments (0)

Another court in Washington was asked to apply the Mike M. Johnson[i] decision to a contractor’s claim for extra work.  This time it was the Division III Court of Appeals in Washington.  The Division III Court of Appeals, which covers all of Eastern Washington, had a hand in the original Mike M. Johnson case.  That court is the intermediary court that ruled in favor of the contractor in Mike M. Johnson.  It held that there were issues of fact as to whether Spokane County, in the Mike M. Johnson case, had actual notice of the changed conditions and, thus, waived the notice and claim procedures that the County was attempting to rely upon.  The Division III Court of Appeals was later overruled by the Washington State Supreme Court, which held as a matter of law that the County of Spokane had not waived the notice and claim procedures.  This time around, the Division III Court of Appeals, for the most part, ruled in favor of the public entity and followed the Mike M. Johnson decision.

Is Reversing an Arbitration Award Going to Become Easier in the Future?[i]

Date: May 10, 2017  /  Author: John P. Ahlers  /  Categories: Claims, Rants and Raves, Construction News and Notes, Contracting, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)  /  Keywords: Is Reversing an Arbitration Award Going to Become Easier in the Future? 5  /  Comments (0)

Generally, contractors choose arbitration because it is a cost-effective method of dispute resolution, and primarily because an award issued in arbitration is final.  Vacating an arbitration award is only permitted on very narrow grounds.  A party must demonstrate that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means, or that an arbitrator exceeded his/her power (very high burdens).  Arbitration rules in other states are similar to the Washington statute.  Stated simply, it is very difficult to reverse an arbitration award—or is it?  These two cases do not indicate a trend but do remind us that an arbitrator’s power is limited to that power granted to him/her by contract.

ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

Date: April 27, 2017  /  Author: John P. Ahlers  /  Categories: Claims, Rants and Raves, Memorable Quotes, Construction News and Notes, Contracting, Government Contracts  /  Comments (0)

For government contractors, an unfavorable performance rating review posted to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) can be extremely costly.  Many of the government-negotiated solicitations include past performance as an important, and sometimes even primary, evaluation factor for contract award.  An unfavorable CPARS review on a past contract can cause the contractor to incur substantial extra costs in addressing the unfavorable review with contracting officers on future solicitations, and, in some instances, the contractor saddled with an unfair or inaccurate CPARS may have to challenge the review and recover some of these costs.

Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

Date: March 8, 2017  /  Author: Paul R. Cressman, Jr.  /  Categories: Out of the Ordinary, Construction News and Notes, Memorable Quotes, Rants and Raves, Damages, Claims  /  Keywords: Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence 6  /  Comments (0)

King County Superior Court issued sanctions of $1,641,721 in favor of Gefco and against Cascade Drilling, Inc. and its President, Bruce Niermeyer, composed of $1,394,435 in attorneys’ fees and $247,286 in expert fees.

Cascade Drilling is a contractor.  Gefco manufactures and sells large drilling machinery.  The dispute centered around a project that began in 2008.  Cascade was hired to drill a water well at a housing development in Wheeler Canyon, California.  Cascade used a 50K drilling rig purchased from Gefco.  The pump drive shafts on the drilling rig failed four times.  After each failure, Cascade ordered a replacement pump drive shaft from Gefco.

Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

Date: January 27, 2017  /  Author: James R. Lynch  /  Categories: Out of the Ordinary, Construction News and Notes, Memorable Quotes, Rants and Raves, Damages, Claims  /  Comments (0)

A customer shopping at Walmart’s outdoor garden center in Clarkston, Washington, reached down to brush aside a stick covering a price tag for bags of mulch stored on wooden pallets. The “stick” turned out to be a rattlesnake, and bit his hand.

The customer sued Walmart on the legal basis of “premises liability,” claiming that as Walmart’s business invitee (one who enters the owner’s property primarily for the owner’s benefit), the store owed him a duty to warn or guard against hazardous conditions such as the rattlesnake.

Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights

Date: January 11, 2017  /  Author: Brett M. Hill  /  Categories: Contracting, Construction News and Notes, Memorable Quotes, Rants and Raves, Damages, Construction Defect, Claims  /  Comments (0)

Many construction contracts contain a termination clause that allows a contractor to be terminated either for convenience or for cause.  Termination for convenience and termination for cause clauses have been discussed previously on the blog here, here, and here.  The distinction between a termination for convenience or for cause is an important one.

If a contractor is terminated for convenience, the rights of the party who has terminated the contractor for convenience could be limited in the future.  This is specifically true as to any defects in the terminated contractor’s work that are discovered after the termination for convenience.

Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

Date: December 22, 2016  /  Author: Masaki J. Yamada  /  Categories: Construction News and Notes, Memorable Quotes, Rants and Raves, Damages, Construction Defect, Claims  /  Keywords: Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage 7  /  Comments (0)

Washington Courts allow an insurer to determine its duty to defend an insured against a lawsuit based only on the face of the complaint and the limitations of the insurance policy.  This is otherwise known as the “eight corners” rule (four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy).  In other words, the insurance company is not permitted to rely on facts extrinsic to the complaint in order to deny its duty to defend an insured.  See Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 763 (2002).  The laws in Washington provide greater protection to the insured over the insurer when it comes to the insurer’s duty to defend.  The duty to defend a claim is triggered if a claim could “conceivably” be covered under the policy.  See Woo v. Fireman’s Insurance, 161 Wn.2d 43 (2007).  If there is any ambiguity in a policy with regard to coverage, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured.