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 -

American Safety v. City of Olympia

Date: January 3, 2008  /  Author: Brett Hill  /  Categories: Change Orders, Claims, Damages  /  Comments (0)
Court of Appeals clarifies waiver of contractual provisions post Mike M. Johnson. This case is no longer good law, please refer to the Supreme Court's ruling (discussed above) that overruled this case.

MacLean Townhomes, LLC v. P.J. Interprize, Inc.

Date: January 3, 2008  /  Author: Brett Hill  /  Categories: Damages, Indemnity  /  Comments (0)
Indemnity Clause in Contract Not Limited to Tort Claims

Henifin Constr. v. Keystone Constr.

Date: January 3, 2008  /  Author: Brett Hill  /  Categories: Change Orders, Claims, Damages, Liens/Bond Claims  /  Comments (0)
General contractor is the owner’s “Construction Agent” as defined under the private lien statute and, thus, subcontractor's lien for extra work authorized only by the general contractor was valid.

Lakemont Ridge - RCW 64.50 Pre Litigation Notice of Defects

Date: January 3, 2008  /  Author: Brett Hill  /  Categories: Construction Defect  /  Comments (0)

In Lakemont Ridge, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of homeowner's associations who allege claims for construction defects against developers/contractors.

Biwell Construction v. City of Seattle

Date: January 3, 2008  /  Author: Brett Hill  /  Categories: Claims, Delay Claims  /  Comments (0)
In Biwell Construction v. City of Seattle, 1005 WL 763250 (Wash. App. Div. 1 April 4, 2005) (Unpublished Opinion), the Division One Court of Appeals held that a trial court improperly dismissed a claim for unpaid contract balance for failing to comply with the contract's claim requirements and the time limitation for suit provision.

Eng'g Group v. Ondeo Degremont

Date: January 3, 2008  /  Author: Brett Hill  /  Categories: Liens/Bond Claims  /  Comments (0)

In Eng'g Group v. Ondeo Degremont, 128 Wn. App. 885, ___ P.3d ___ (August 9, 2005), the Courty of Appeals held that the prevailing party in an action involving a contractor's registration bond is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees not limited by the amount of the bond.

Legislature Adopts Uniform Arbitration Act - Effective 1/1/06

Date: January 3, 2008  /  Author: Brett Hill  /  Categories: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)  /  Comments (0)
This article provides a summary of the Uniform Arbitration Act that was enacted into law on January 1, 2006.

Mike M. Johnson v. Spokane County - Contract Notice and Claim clauses are strictly enforceable

Date: January 2, 2008  /  Author: Brett Hill  /  Categories: Change Orders, Claims, Damages, Delay Claims  /  Comments (0)

The seminal case in Washington regarding change orders and the enforceability of notice provisions in construction contracts. The Washington State Supreme Court held contractual notice provisions are strictly enforceable unless the clause has been waived by the party who benefits from the clause. The waiver must be "clear and unequivocal" for it to be valid.

American Safety v. City of Olympia: Supreme Court Affirms and Clarifies Mike M. Johnson

Date: January 2, 2008  /  Author: Ryan Sternoff  /  Categories: Change Orders, Claims, Damages, Delay Claims  /  Comments (0)
Last month, the Washington State Supreme Court affirmed its holding in Mike M. Johnson and reversed the Division 2 Court of Appeals in Am. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Olympia, __ Wn.2d __, __ P.3d. __ (2007). The case again demonstrates the Washington State Supreme Court's position that contractors must strictly comply with the notice and claim procedures in their contracts, absent an "unequivocal" waiver of those procedures by the other party to the contract.

State of WA D.O.C. v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.

Date: January 2, 2008  /  Author: Brett Hill  /  Categories: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)  /  Comments (0)

The Division One Court of Appeals held that prejudgment interest on an arbitration award is not recoverable between when the arbitrator issues the award and when the final judgment is entered in Superior Court.