Seattle Washington Building Consultant Directory

NY Is Set To Sue US EPA Over ‘Completion’ of PCB Removal

June 25, 2019 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
New York state intends to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for issuing a certificate to General Electric Co. affirming the company completed its $1.7-billion cleanup of about 40 miles of the upper Hudson River, contaminated with PCBs from two former factories. State Attorney General Letitia James said April 11 that a December state study showed elevated PCB levels in river sediment and concentrations in fish, which were not recovering at the rate EPA anticipated. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

April 02, 2019 — Amy L. Pierce & William S. Hale, P.E. - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Blog
Most companies have been involved in a situation where they want to end their relationship with another company, or with an employee, and to permanently terminate their mutual obligations (e.g., a settlement agreement resolving end-of-project litigation). In 1992, a California Court of Appeals, in Winet v. Price, confirmed that upholding general releases is “in harmony… with a beneficial principle of contract law: that general releases can be so constructed as to be completely enforceable.” In California, agreements with a release of claims (or s general release) include what is often referred to as a California Civil Code § 1542 waiver for the purpose of ensuring that the releasing party is consciously releasing both known and unknown claims that may be later discovered. Such a waiver provision generally confirms that the Releasing Party acknowledges that it understands and waives the provisions of Section 1542, followed by the quoted text of Section 1542 (typically in all capital letters). Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and William S. Hale, Pillsbury Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Hale may be contacted at william.hale@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Be Careful in Contracting and Business

May 06, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
After an hour long phone conference with a client, I have had several thoughts, only a few of which I can share here (grin). The first is that my friends and clients in the construction industry are hurting, but need to work with an attorney to assure that the pain is lessened. The second is that more, not less, precision is needed in construction contracting these days. The reason for the first thought is that the construction industry has taken a hit lately. The news is fraught with stories of the economic downturn and its impact on construction. While the money may be hard to part with, all construction professionals should get their contracts and business practices audited regularly to avoid risk and assure, as best as is possible, that they are protected. One place to get such triage is at my firm. If you don’t use me, please use someone else. On the second point, clients need attorney fees provisions, indemnity clauses and to assure that a scope of work is very specifically defined. Wiggle room is not available. In tough economic times. Owners will look for something closer to perfection when money is tight than when money is not. Contractors should also. Your contract is the first line of defense. While no contract can possibly cover every contingency and contracts are only as good as those who sign them when it comes right down to it, a good base contract is the best shield. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

July 01, 2019 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
The developer of a New York City high rise and the project's former prime contractor are trading unusually nasty safety related accusations in a dispute over the contractor's exit from the project. The contractor, New York City-based Pizzarotti, claims the settlement of the structure in soft soils creates hazards in future work that could send building components crashing to the streets. In reply, developer Fortis Property Group says the contractor’s uneven pace of work is to blame for what it sees as only slab misalignments that don’t compromise safety in any way. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

April 10, 2019 — Parker A. Lewton - Smith Currie
A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

Study Finds San Francisco Bay is Sinking Faster than Expected

July 15, 2019 — Alan Rider - Engineering News-Record
All coastal cities in the U.S. face some potential threat from sea-level rise, but areas around San Francisco Bay may be more vulnerable than previously thought according to a recent study by Arizona State University’s Manoochehr Shirzaei and UC Berkley’s Roland Bürgmann published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alan Rider, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Eleventh Circuit Rules That Insurer Must Defend Contractor Despite “Your Work” Exclusion, Where Damage Timing Unclear

May 13, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Eleventh Circuit has reversed an insurer’s award of summary judgment after finding that uncertainty about when the alleged property damage occurred raised questions about whether the damage came within the scope of the “Your Work” exclusion. More specifically, the court found unclear whether the damage occurred before or after the contractor abandoned the job, thereby triggering an exception to the “Your Work” exclusion for damage to work that had “not yet been completed or abandoned.” The decision illustrates how timing can be a critical factor when it comes to triggering coverage for work and completed operations. In Southern-Owners Insurance Company v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC, a pair of trustees hired MAC Contractors (doing business as KJIMS Construction) to serve as the general contractor for a custom residence. After construction began, disputes between the trustees and KJIMS caused the contractor to abandon the job before completing the project. The trustees followed with a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that KJIMS had damaged wood floors and a metal roof, which KJIMS had promised to remediate but never did. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

May 13, 2019 — Meredith Thielbahr - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
For those contractors in the government arena, read on. The False Claims Act (“FCA”) was enacted to deter knowingly fraudulent actions by contractors which resulted in a loss of property to the Government. Intent to defraud with resulting financial hardship was required. Contrary to popular misconception, the statute was not designed to punish all false submissions to the Government simply because those submissions, or claims, are later found to be false. The statute’s inclusion of the requisite element of knowledge is consistent with this notion:

A defendant must submit a claim for payment to the Government;
the claim must be false or fraudulent;
the defendant must have known the claim was fraudulent when it was submitted (also known as scienter); and
the claim must have caused the Government to pay out money.

See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). Despite these explicit elements (in addition to common law elements of fraud), over the last two decades, contractors have seen ever-expanding theories of FCA recovery presented by qui tam plaintiffs and the Government. For example, under the FCA, the false “claim” evolved over time: the claim no longer needs to be an express false claim (i.e. the truthfulness of the claim is a direct condition of payment); the claim can be “implied” misrepresentation or “half-truth”. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Thielbahr may be contacted at mthielbahr@grsm.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING CONSULTANT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES