Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan

February 27, 2019 — Rick Clough - Bloomberg
General Electric Co. will reimburse the state of Massachusetts for funds used to develop the manufacturer’s future headquarters, a project that is now being scaled back under Chief Executive Officer Larry Culp. GE and the state will jointly sell the property in Boston’s Fort Point neighborhood where the company will make its future home, according to an agreement revealed Thursday. GE still plans to move into the campus later this year -- as a tenant rather than owner -- but it’s scrapping plans to build an adjacent 12-story tower. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Clough, Bloomberg

Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

February 05, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc. (No. B247080, filed 1/30/2015) the Court of Appeal, Second District, held that a trial judge’s disclosure to the panel of prospective jurors of plaintiff’s status as an undocumented alien was prejudicial and grounds for a new trial. Plaintiff, Wilfredo Velasquez, brought suit against defendant, Centrome, Inc., alleging personal injuries related to on-the-job exposure to diacetyl, which was purportedly distributed by Centrome. Prior to trial, numerous motions in limine were filed with the trial court including a motion brought by Plaintiff to preclude Centrome from referring to or making any comments about Mr. Velasquez’s citizenship or immigration status. Plaintiff contended the information was not relevant (as no loss of earnings claim was asserted), and was substantially more prejudicial than probative. Defendant opposed the Motion arguing the information was relevant for the limited purpose of allowing expert testimony about Mr. Velasquez’s inability as an undocumented alien to participate in a lung transplant he claimed was needed. The Court deferred ruling on the motion. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Jersey Firm’s Fee Action Tossed for not Filing Substitution of Counsel

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Even though their client had terminated their services by email, a “New Jersey appeals court has tossed out a firm’s fee action” finding that the firm had “remained counsel of record because it did not file a substitution of counsel until almost a year later,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. In Arturi, D’Argenio, Guagliardi & Meliti v. Sadej, Jesse and Carla Sadej had retained the firm, Arturi, D’Argenio, Guagliardi & Meliti, “to defend them in the underlying land use litigation brought in 2002 by the borough of Seaside Park, N.J.” The case had been dismissed, but was reinstated in 2009 by an appeals court. At that time, Arturi D’Argenio told the Sadejs that they would need to sign a new retainer agreement in order to continue representation. On July 18, 2010, the Sadejs emailed the firm stating that they were “officially terminated,” according to the opinion as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. The firm sued the Sadejs “for about $100,000 in fees it was allegedly owed from the Seaside Park case and other matters on behalf of Jesse Sadej.” However, a substitution of attorney wasn’t filed until months later. The case went to the appeals court, which stated that the firm should have withdrawn immediately after receiving the email notification from their client: “Because it failed to do so, it remained counsel of record and therefore was precluded from initiating the collection action at that point,” the judges said, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Quick Checklist for Subcontractors

January 26, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After the last two weeks’ analyses of a couple of big construction decisions that came out recently, I thought I’d keep this week’s post practical and short for those that are not construction lawyers. So without further ado, here is a short checklist of the top things (aside from calling their local experienced construction attorney) a construction subcontractor should do or look for when reviewing a construction contract from a general contractor (and for a couple of these that a general contractor can look for in its prime contract).

ALWAYS get a copy of the Prime Contract between the Owner and the General Contractor. This contract will contain terms that will “flow down” to you through the incorporation clause that almost every subcontract contains. You can’t do much to change these terms, but you will need to know them as the job progresses.
READ every provision of the subcontract. I know this sounds simple, but not all subcontracts hide the red flags in the same places. Remember the details of a subcontract can sink you later if you aren’t prepared.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Texas Mechanic’s Lien Law Update: New Law Brings a Little Relief for Subcontractors and a Lot of Relief for Design Professionals

June 07, 2021 — Tracey L. Williams - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
After several recent failed attempts to amend Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code (the “Texas Mechanic’s Lien Statute”), it appears that long awaited relief may, at least in part, be on the horizon for subcontractors in Texas. Additionally, architects, engineers, and surveyors also appear to be significant benefactors of House Bill 2237 (“HB 2237”). Under existing law, many subcontractors often fail to perfect their mechanic’s liens under the Texas Mechanic’s Lien Statute because of complex notice requirements which must be sent for every month in which labor or material are furnished. And architects, engineers and surveyors currently have no lien rights unless they have a direct contractual relationship with the owner of the project. Effective January 1, 2022, HB 2237 amends the Texas Mechanic’s Lien Statute in several significant respects. Subcontractor Impacts HB 2237 impacts subcontractors in the following ways:

Establishes uniformity in the notice requirements by imposing the same notice obligation on all subcontractors regardless of with whom they have contracted. Rather than sending one notice to the owner and one to the general contractor, the single notice now required must be sent to both simultaneously. Additionally, HB 2237 prescribes the form of the notice to be given under both Section 53.056 (notice of derivative claimant) and 53.057 (notice of contractual retainage).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracey L. Williams, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Williams may be contacted at twilliams@pecklaw.com

Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

October 20, 2016 — Gregory R. Begg & Aaron C. Schlesinger – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
What Action Should Owners, Developers and Contractors Take in Anticipation of Successful Challenges to PLA Requirements? Recently, a federal court in New Jersey issued a decision which very well may invalidate all Project Labor Agreements (“PLA’s”) entered into as a condition to receipt of tax incentives for private development. Tax incentives utilized to promote private development are different, according to the court, than typical public works projects where PLA requirements have generally been held valid. Owners, developers, contractors and governmental entities must assess the consequences of this decision upon contracts already and to be awarded in the future where tax benefits may be linked to a PLA requirement. In 1993, in what has become known as the Boston Harbor Case, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governmental entities may condition the award of public works contracts on the contractor’s agreement to enter into PLA’s. That decision has been followed nationwide since then to uphold the validity of various state and local law bidding conditions requiring successful bidders to negotiate and enter into project labor agreements as a condition to the award of public works contracts. The rationale is that when the government, like any other private party, is participating in an economic market, it may exercise its discretion in setting terms and conditions it believes best suit its interests in the efficient procurement of goods and services in that market. Therefore, a PLA requirement by a governmental entity engaged in market activity is no more or less valid than a PLA requirement on a purely private project. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Tenth Circuit Finds Appraisal Can Decide Causation of Loss Under Colorado Law

November 29, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Tenth Circuit determined that the Colorado Supreme Court would agree with other state courts that appraisers can decide the causation of a loss. Bonbeck Parker, LLC v. The Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29607 (10th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021). A hailstorm damaged three buildings owned by BonBeck. A claim was submitted to Travelers under BonBeck's commercial property policy. Travelers acknowledged that some hail damage occurred to all the buildings except for the roofs. Travelers paid $34,200 for damage to the buildings. Coverage for the roof damage was denied because it resulted not from the hail damage but from uncovered events like wear and tear, deterioration, and improperly installation. BonBeck requested an appraisal. Travelers insisted that the appraisal would only determine the amount of loss of covered claims. BonBeck rejected these conditions and Travelers filed suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Class Action Certification by Association for “Matters of Common Interest”

August 24, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Associations have authority to pursue as a class, on behalf of all of their respective members, lawsuits “concerning members of common interest to the members.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.221. This includes, but is not limited to, the common property or the areas in which the association is responsible. But, what about matters or elements for which the association is not responsible or does not own? For example, issues or damages relative to a specific unit or owner that are prevalent throughout? The Third District Court of Appeal addressed this question in Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. Latitude on the River Condominium Association, Inc., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1518a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) when in affirmed a class certification by a condominium association relating to the removal and replacement of the condominium building’s defective fire sprinkler system. In affirming the class certification by the condominium association, the Third District maintained:

Rule 1.221 expressly authorizes condominium associations to “institute, maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in its name on behalf of all association members concerning matters of common interest to the members.” “[A]s to controversies affecting the matters of common interest . . ., the condominium association, without more, should be construed to represent the class composed of its members as a matter of law.” “[T]he common interest provision of the rule has been interpreted to permit a class action by the association for a construction defect located physically within a unit, rather than in the common elements, if the defect is prevalent throughout the building.” We, therefore, cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding that damages resulting from the replacement of the fire-sprinkler system throughout the building were a matter of common interest for purposes of certification at this stage of the litigation. Allied Tube and Conduit Corp, supra (internal citations omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES