SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

June 08, 2020 — Taylor Orgeron - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case established a rule concerning the effect of an unlicensed contractor failing to disclose that he is unlicensed. In Fleetwood v. Lucas,[1] the contractor was hired by the homeowners to perform renovations on two homes. One of the projects went over budget, and the homeowners failed to pay the remaining balances on both projects. Following their failure to pay, the contractor sued the homeowners for breach of contract, and the jury delivered a verdict in his favor. The homeowners appealed on the grounds that the contractor was barred from bringing suit because the contractor did not have a license to perform the work. Generally, if a contractor does not have a residential or general contractor’s license but performs work when a license is required, the contract is unenforceable. O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(b). However, under O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(g), a contractor may perform repair work without a license if the contractor discloses that he does not have a license, and the work does not affect the structural integrity of the project. In this case, the contractor failed to disclose that he did not have a license. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Taylor Orgeron, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Orgeron may be contacted at orgeron@ahclaw.com

---

NTSB Pittsburgh Bridge Probe Update Sheds Light on Collapse Sequence

June 06, 2022 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued an update in its investigation of the Jan. 28 collapse of Pittsburgh's Fern Hollow Bridge that provides additional information about how the collapse proceeded, but does not discuss why the accident occurred. That finding of a probable cause isn't expected until sometime in 2023. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
In Truppi v. Pasco Engineering, John Quattro sued Property Management Contractors, Inc. over construction defects in William Truppi’s home. All parties are named in the suit. The California Court of Appeals ruled that Property Management Contractors, Inc. (PMCI) could not compel Mr. Quattro to arbitration. The background of the case involves two houses built in Encinitas, California by PCMI: one for Mr. Truppi at 560 Neptune, and one for Mr. Quattro at 566 Neptune. Both contracts contained an arbitration provision. Mr. Quattro signed the contract for his residence and Mr. Truppi signed the other. Mr. Quattro then sued PCMI and its principal, William Gregory. Mr. Quattro claimed to be the true contracting party for the 560 Neptune residence and a third party beneficiary of the contract Mr. Truppi signed, and stated that PCMI was aware of this. PCMI in a demurrer stated that Quattro “had only a ‘prospective beneficial interest in the property upon its eventual sale or lease.’” Mr. Quattro amended his complaint to account for the issues raised by PCMI. The court rejected PCMI’s demurrer to the amended complaint. Finally, PCMI and Gregory asserted that Quattro was “not the real party in interest” and could not sue. PCMI continues to assert that Quattro lacks standing, but their attorney sent Quattro an e-mail stating, “While my client disputes that you are a party, and that you lack standing to assert the claim, to the extent you do so I believe you are obligated to proceed by way of arbitration.” The court did not cover the issue of Quattro’s standing in the case, only if he could be compelled to arbitration. The court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Quattro could not be compelled to arbitrate the construction defect claim as neither he nor Gregory signed the contract in an individual capacity. Further, the court noted that PCMI and Gregory “denied the existence of an agreement between themselves and Quattro on the 560 contract,” and cannot compel arbitration on a non-existent agreement. And while non-signatories can, in some situations be compelled to arbitrate, the court found that “these cases are inapplicable because here they seek to have the alleged third party beneficiary (Quattro) compelled by a nonsignatory (Gregory).” The arbitration clause in question “expressly limited its application to persons or entities that signed the 560 contract.” As Mr. Quattro was not a signatory to that agreement, the court found that he could not be held to its arbitration provision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

While Starts Fall, Builder Confidence and Permits are on the Rise

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing reported that “the NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index and the expansion of housing permits, suggest more growth ahead.” While the Census Bureau and HUD reported that housing starts in May declined 11.1%, Eye on Housing points to a positive sign in that building permits were up 11.8% in the same month. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Complying With Data Breach Regulations in the Construction Industry

November 24, 2019 — Ryan Bilbrey - Construction Executive
Recent data breach incidents—like the massive Capital One cyberattack, where a former employee accessed more than 100 million customer accounts and credit card applications—have left many users questioning how safe their information really is in the hands of companies. There is reason to be concerned. More than 4.1 billion records were exposed in nearly 4,000 data breaches reported in the first half of 2019 alone, according to the 2019 MidYear QuickView Data Breach Report. Construction companies are not immune. As the industry becomes more reliant on technology—using augmented reality, Building Information Modeling and drones on construction sites, for example—construction companies are becoming greater targets for hackers looking to gain a financial or strategic advantage. Instead of assuming a company will never experience a breach (or rather, denying that it will ever happen), it’s important to be aware of possible threats and establish data breach response policies to minimize potentially catastrophic fallout. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Bilbrey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Bilbrey may be contacted at rbilbrey@biaprotect.com

---

Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation

December 02, 2015 — William Kennedy – White and Williams LLP
Contracting parties can circumvent the limitations of common law tort doctrines by drafting contracts with language that details the allocation or shifting of the risk of tort loss. Properly composed, “broad form” contractual indemnity provisions can permit an Indemnitee to shift the full range of tort exposure – damages and defense fees and costs – if they have the kind of specificity set forth in Part Two of this series, "Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision." In most business transactions, however, both the Indemnitee and the Indemnitor want the indemnity obligation to be insured. Part Three: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation “Insured Contract Coverage” Although CGL policies do not typically cover an Insured’s breaches of contract, per se, most insurance policies do cover a policyholder’s “incidental contracts” or “insured contracts” under which the policyholder has an obligation to indemnify an Indemnitee. The business contract (as opposed to the insurance policy) should require the Indemnitor to take all steps necessary to have the Indemnitee identified as either a Covered Person, Insured, or Additional Insured on the Indemnitor’s applicable insurance policies. There are subtle, but potentially significant legal rights and responsibilities that hinge on whether an entity is a Covered Person, Insured, Additional Insured, or some other classification. Purported Indemnitees may need to consult insurance coverage counsel to ensure that they are seeking the appropriate status from the Indemnitor’s CGL insurer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Kennedy, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Kennedy may be contacted at kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

September 04, 2018 — Brian Bassett - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In Lexington Ins. Co. v. Chi. Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135871, 2018 WL 3819109 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that rip-and-tear costs could qualify as covered “property damage,” but the court rejected coverage for claims that the insured intentionally sold a noncompliant product as the suit did not allege an “occurrence.” Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) issued a CGL policy to Chicago Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp. (“Flameproof”). During the policy period, a third party ordered fire-retardant-treated lumber from Flameproof for construction in Minnesota. Flameproof instead sent materials that were not tested, certified, or labeled as compliant. The third party installed the materials, discovered the non-compliance, and then removed the materials. Removing the materials allegedly damaged other portions of the building on the project. The third party then sued Flameproof, alleging costs associated with replacing the lumber as well as property damage to the other materials from the removal of the lumber. Flameproof tendered the claim to Lexington seeking a defense. Lexington filed a declaratory action in the Northern District of Illinois. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Bassett may be contacted at bbassett@tlsslaw.com

---

Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

March 07, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the past year a number of state and federal courts have rendered a number of conflicting decisions that promise to alter or perhaps shift entirely the paradigm, of how builders manage risk.



According to a report today by Dave Lenckus in Property Casualty 360 “Nine state and federal courts and one state legislature over the past year have addressed whether a construction defect a defective product or faulty workmanship is fortuitous and therefore an occurrence under the commercial general liability insurance policy. Four jurisdictions determined it is; three said no; two ruled that a construction defect that causes consequential damage to property other than the work product is an occurrence; and one federal court contributed its conflicting case law that has developed in Oregon since its high court ruled in 2000 that a construction defect is not an occurrence”.



The article strongly suggests that in the absence of a clear consensus over what the recent rulings mean for builders and contractors coverage disputes will intensify and continue to proliferate.



Doing this on a state-by-state basis has caused a lot of confusion among buyers and sellers, said Jeffrey A. Segall, a Tampa-based senior vice president and the Florida Construction Practice leader at Willis of Florida, a unit of Willis Group Holdings.



Read Full Story...

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---