Anaheim California Building Consultant Directory

Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

October 28, 2024 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Review of (a) RCW 60.30.010-020, (b) RCW 49.17.530, (c) RCW 19.95.020, (d) RCW 39.116.005, et seq., (e) RCW 36.70B.080, and (f) RCW 39.12.010 and .13 While much of the focus on the recent legislative updates has been on RCW 39.04.360, a number of other legislative changes may also have significant impacts on Washington’s construction industry. Six of these changes are summarized below. A. RCW 60.30.010 and .020 (SSB 6108) – Concerning Retainage on Private Construction, Effective June 6, 2024 Last year, ESSB 5528 imposed restrictions and obligations related to retainage and timing of final payment on private (non-public works) projects. It capped retainage at 5%, required prompt payment on final payments, and required owners to accept a retainage bond on private construction projects, excluding single-family residential construction less than 12 units. This year, SSB 6108 adds suppliers to the statutes (RCW 60.30.010 and 0.020) pertaining to retainage on private construction projects. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

Update: Amazon Can (Still) Be Liable in Louisiana

December 31, 2024 — Michael Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
On November 25, 2024, in Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-01448, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215377, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (District Court) ruled that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) could be liable for manufacturer-seller liability under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) for a defective product sold by a third-party seller through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program (FBA). The court also dismissed two tort claims against Amazon as follows: (i) Amazon does not qualify as a “seller” for purposes of non-manufacturer seller liability (because passing title is required for that claim); and (ii) there is insufficient evidence to prove the decedent, Archie Pickard (Pickard), relied on Amazon’s safety practices when purchasing the defective product, precluding a claim for negligent undertaking. Background Pickard died from injuries sustained in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger he purchased on Amazon. Jisell, a Chinese company and a third-party seller, manufactured and sold the charger. Amazon never took title to the charger but stored it in its warehouse and delivered it to Pickard through the FBA. Pickard’s children filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Amazon alleging three claims: (i) manufacturer-seller liability under the LPLA; and tort-based claims of (ii) non-manufacturer seller liability and (iii) negligent undertaking. After Amazon moved for summary judgment on all claims, the District Court certified questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana (Supreme Court) seeking guidance as there was minimal guidance regarding the application of products claims to online marketplaces. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

Will the AI Frenzy Continue in 2025?

January 14, 2025 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In AEC technology, 2024 was undoubtedly the year of AI. Every company seemed to announce its pledge to embrace artificial intelligence in the coming years, not to mention the numerous startups that peppered their pitch decks with promises of bleeding-edge innovation. Tech developers who had been using machine learning before the generative AI boom were delighted. They no longer needed to invest significant resources in convincing the industry of AI’s potential. The mainstream success of generative AI in 2024 created a ripple effect, making AEC firms eager to explore and adopt AI solutions. Many all-digital startups also got a boost from the AI frenzy, even though many significant innovations happened in hardware and material technology that did not rely on AI. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

“A No-Lose Proposition?”

October 07, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act payment bond surety and its principal general contractor both sued in federal court in New Orleans by a project subcontractor sought to compel arbitration the claims against both contractor and surety based on an indisputably enforceable arbitration clause in the subcontract. This was urged to avoid separate actions against the contractor (arbitration) and its surety (litigation), even though the surety was not a party to the subcontract and, therefore, not a party to the arbitration clause. In the face of the lack of an express agreement to arbitrate, the contractor and contractor argued that “no federal statute or policy prohibits all of Plaintiff’s claims from proceeding to arbitration….” Additionally, those parties urged that the surety should be allowed to affirmatively compel arbitration because the surety “would otherwise have the ability to assert the right to compel arbitration as a defense….” The New Orleans federal district court was unpersuaded:

“[D]istrict courts within this circuit have recognized that ‘Miller Act claims by a subcontractor for unpaid labor and materials are separate and distinct from those for general breach of contract… [and] arbitration and Miller Act suits, are not, per se, inconsistent with one another.’…[A]bsent express contractual intent to subject Miller Act claims to arbitration, the court [will] not force the parties to arbitrate claims against nonparties to the contract at issue…. [C]laims against a surety, which was a non-signatory to the contract, would not be subject to arbitration without any contractual basis to do so.”

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Why Being Climate ‘Positive’ Is the Buzzy New Goal of Green Building

December 10, 2024 — Olivia Rudgard - Bloomberg
The three buildings, dotted around Norway, couldn’t look more different: a soaring timber-and-concrete obelisk in Porsgrunn; a squat, two-story Montessori school on the edge of a forest in Drøbak; and a concrete and glass wedge-shaped office in Trondheim, just a few hundred miles from the edge of the Arctic Circle. But they share a distinctive feature. Each has a roof perfectly tilted to squeeze out every possible drop of solar energy. They are called Powerhouses, and the initiative behind them claims they are all “energy positive”: The upfront energy “cost” of each building, and that of later demolition and disposal, is expected to be made back over the building’s lifetime. Powerhouses sometimes draw from the grid, especially in winter, but in the long Nordic summer days they give back many times over, overspilling excess solar energy into surrounding homes and businesses. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Rudgard, Bloomberg

Consider Arbitration Provision in Homebuilder’s Warranty and Purchase-and-Sale Agreement

November 18, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When you enter into a contract with a homebuilder, particularly a tract homebuilder, please consider two things when it comes to dispute resolution: (1) your purchase-and-sale agreement likely contains an arbitration provision, and (2) your limited warranty agreement you get in connection with closing likely also reinforces the arbitration provision, especially with warranty claims governed by the limited warranty agreement. This dispute resolution is important because it means the homebuilder wants disputes resolved through the arbitration process and NOT through the litigation process (where the nature of disputes and allegations are public). Look, there are pros and cons with arbitration, no different than litigation. Arbitrating a dispute is not necessarily a bad thing, and with certain disputes, ideal. There is no right to appeal in arbitration, but the dispute should resolve itself quicker than litigation, and you’ll have more control over the decision maker, i.e., the arbitrator. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

The Privette Doctrine and Its Exceptions: Court of Appeal Grapples With the Easy and Not So Easy

November 18, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In CBRE v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.5th 639 (2024), the 4th District Court of Appeal grappled with a thorny and not-so-thorny issue involving injured parties under the Privette doctrine. The less thorny issue was whether application of the Privette doctrine depends on whether a written contract exists between the parties. Spoiler: It does not. The thorny issue was whether the Hooker exception to the Privette doctrine – which applies when a landowner exercises control over a project – should apply where a landowner directs a contractor to perform work that is at odds with legal requirements. The CBRE Case Property Reserve, Inc. owns an office building managed by CBRE in San Diego, California. On April 9, 2019, PRI entered into a lease agreement with a new tenant for a suite in the building. The lease required that PRI perform certain tenant improvements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

November 11, 2024 — Cornelius F. "Lee" Banta, Jr. - ConsensusDocs
Deadlines are an inescapable part of the construction industry. Bid deadlines. Submittal deadlines. Material delivery deadlines. Substantial completion. Final completion. And so, inevitably, fighting about deadlines becomes a necessary byproduct. Was the deadline really a deadline? Was the schedule slippage on the critical path? Should there be an equitable extension to the date of substantial completion? Given the amount of attention and concern conferred on deadlines, those drafting construction contracts naturally seek to clarify which deadlines really matter with the inclusion of notice and timing provisions. A contract’s change order and claims procedures are often a key friction point for those drafting and administering the contract. Should there be a requirement for prior written notice of a claim for cost/time relief? How much advance notice? Who should the request be sent to? Is a specific form of notice required? What are the consequences of failing to provide timely notice? A practitioner should pay careful attention to negotiating these terms on the front end, because rest assured, these contract provisions will garner scrutiny when a change order dispute boils over. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cornelius F. "Lee" Banta, Jr., Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Banta may be contacted at lbanta@pecklaw.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA BUILDING CONSULTANT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES