SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Welcomes Quinlan Tom

January 06, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
There’s been more cheer than usual at Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group this holiday season. Earlier this month, Quinlan Tom, a construction and business attorney, joined us from McInerney & Dillon, a venerable and well-respected construction boutique firm (we know a lot of folks there) with local roots like us in Oakland, California. We’ve all known Quinlan for a while, so when he decided to join our band of merry legal practitioners, we were quite thrilled. Being lawyers though, and better at asking than answering questions, we decided to pose a few questions to Quinlan: Q. So, you’ve just been sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury. So, tell us about your practice. A. Let me just start with it’s quite an honor to appear in your blog; I’ve been a reader for a while (in secret of course before I got to Wendel Rosen). I’m also excited to join you and the other members of Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group; as you mention, I’ve known each of you professionally for quite some time and respect each of you tremendously. I started as a construction litigator right out of law school. I completed three years of mechanical engineering at UC Davis and put that on my resume when I was looking for a job after law school. (In addition, my dad retired after 40 years in the trenches as a union electrician). McInerney & Dillon (“M&D”) and a couple of other firms found that interesting and I ended up starting with M&D. I did find that my engineering studies helped with my acclimation to construction disputes. While I never pretend to be an engineer, it has provided me with a foundation of how the construction process works and how the projects are designed. 26 years later, I continue to enjoy counseling my clients in their construction disputes/issues and still find each construction project I am involved with fascinating. I have tried, arbitrated and litigated cases for 26 years, from the United States District Court to the California Superior Court and the California Office of Administrative Hearings. I have argued cases before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeal. I counsel my clients into hopefully making the best business decisions available melding the knowledge I have gleaned from my litigation experience with their financial and personal goals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic

April 06, 2020 — Lori Smith & Patrick Devine - White and Williams Taking Care of Business Blog
Increasingly, M&A transactions are using representation and warranty insurance (RWI) to bridge the gap between a buyer’s desire for adequate recourse to recover damages arising out of breach of representations in the purchase agreement and a seller’s desire to minimize post-closing risk and holdbacks or purchase price escrows traditionally used as the means to satisfy such obligations. When it works, RWI provides a significant benefit to both parties: it mitigates the buyer’s risk in the event that the seller’s representations and warranties prove untrue, and it permits the seller to reduce the portion of the purchase price that it would otherwise have to leave in escrow to cover future claims for breach of those representations and warranties. However, as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the global economy, insurers are now expressly adding COVID-19 exclusions to their RWI policies. If RWI insurers decline coverage for these losses, the allocation of risk in the representations and warranties (and related indemnity provisions) will be more critical than the parties contemplated when they negotiated the transaction documents. Unlike in the case of a natural disaster, insurers cannot quantify the economic fallout that may result from the coronavirus pandemic. This uncertainty breeds systemic concern about the number of insurance claims that covered parties of all varieties will bring, which in turn creates an industry-wide reluctance to cover the claims. Based on discussions with market participants, we understand that, at the present time, 70% to 80% of RWI insurers are broadly excluding losses resulting from COVID-19 and similar viruses, epidemics, and pandemics (including government actions in response thereto), 5% to 10% are narrowly excluding specific coronavirus-related losses that are more likely to be implicated in a particular transaction (e.g., losses caused by business interruption), and 10% to 15% may be willing to narrow their exclusions upon completion of the underwriting process, depending on their comfort level after conducting rigorous and heightened diligence. Insurers’ concerns are wide-ranging, but the representations and warranties causing the greatest distress appear to be those regarding customer retention, supply chain matters, undisclosed liabilities, and the absence of changes between the date of the seller’s most recent financial statements and the transaction closing date. Reprinted courtesy of Lori Smith, White and Williams and Patrick Devine, White and Williams Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at devinep@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

August 17, 2011 — Melissa Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

Have you ever considered a “Safe Harbor Provision” for your Owner-Architect or Owner-Engineer contract? Maybe it is time that you do.



As you are (probably too well) aware, on every construction project there are changes. Some of these are due to the owner’s change of heart, value engineering concerns, contractor failures, and material substitutions. Some may be because of a design error, omission, or drawing conflict. It happens.



A “Safe Harbor Provision” is a provision that establishes an acceptable percentage of increased construction costs (that is, a percentage of the project’s contingency). The idea is that if the construction changes attributable to the designer is within this percentage, no claim will be made by the Owner for design defects.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.

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

---

Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts

November 13, 2023 — Hal Baker - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In a case of first impression, the First Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently reviewed whether parties may contractually alter the accrual time established by Colorado’s statute of limitations for construction defect actions, C.R.S. § 13-80-104, in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 v. Wold Architects, Inc., 2023 COA 85 (2023), decided on September 21, 2023. The Court held that sophisticated parties may contractually alter the accrual time standards, enlarging the accrual time as was the issue in this case. Notably, the Court’s decision was made in the context of commercial construction, not residential. The issue in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 arose from the construction of a school in Antonito, Colorado. Prior to construction, the South Conejos School District RE-10 (the “School District”) and Wold Architects, Inc. (“Wold”) entered a contract that provided: Unless a longer period is provided by law, any action against [Wold] brought to recover damages for deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction or observation of construction or for injury to person or property shall be brought within two years after the claim for relief arises and is discovered by [the District]; … “Discovered” as used herein means detection and knowledge by [the District] of the defect in the improvement that ultimately causes the injury, when such defect is of a substantial or significant nature. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hal Baker, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Baker may be contacted at baker@hhmrlaw.com

---

Business and Professions Code Section 7031, Demurrers, and Just How Much You Can Dance

February 14, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Fights between owners and contractors under Business and Professions Code section 7031 can get nasty and detailed. An owner’s remedy under Section 7031, as courts have stated, can be “harsh[ ],” “draconian” and even “unjust” and damages can be significant. Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 289216 (2022), a case decided this past month, is no different. It even involved a disagreement between the very justices deciding the case. The Panterra GP Case Panterra GP, Inc. was a licensed general contractor. Rosedale Bakersfield Retail VI, LLC and Movie Grill Concepts XX, LLC intended to hire Panterra GP to perform renovation work at the Studio Movie Grill in Bakersfield, California, but drafted a construction contract mistakenly listing Panterra Development Ltd., LLP as the contractor on the project. Panterra GP was the general partner of Panterra Development. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

New York Considering Legislation That Would Create Statute of Repose For Construction

April 05, 2021 — Richard W. Brown & Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
New York is considering legislation, which, if enacted, would create a statute of repose limiting the number of years after completion of a construction project that legal action may be asserted against a contractor. New York currently remains the only state without a statute of repose for construction. Earlier this year, however, the New York State Legislature introduced Bills S04127 and A01706 (the “Bill”) , which would impose a 10-year period of repose in which an injured party may bring suit against a design professional and/or a contractor for bodily injury or property damage resulting from a construction defect. Currently, contractors and design professionals have exposure to bodily injury and property damage claims resulting from construction defects for an unlimited number of years after completion of a project. If enacted, the Bill would limit the period of repose to 10 years after the project is completed, which is deemed to occur upon substantial completion or acceptance by the owner. An additional 1-year grace period is provided for an injured party to file suit where bodily injury or property damage occurs in the tenth year after completion. The Bill notably limits the applicability of the 10-year statute of repose to third-party actions and thereby preserves the existing 3-year and 6-year statutes of limitation applicable to actions asserted by an owner or client for professional malpractice and breach of contract, respectively. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It

September 03, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Channel 13 Who TV reported, in Winterset, Iowa, Mary Gregory allegedly signed an estimate for hail damage repair to her home, and was later told by the contractor that it was a contract. When a crew showed up to her home to perform the work, she turned them away. Then, Gregory received a letter from an attorney demanding eight thousand dollars for breach of contract. It turns out that the contractor altered the estimate Gregory signed and submitted it to the insurance company. According to Who TV, the altered estimate “contained work that Gregory says she didn’t authorize and a price tag of $32,134.” Jim Nelle, the contractor, admitted that he added to the contract after it was signed. He claims he was only trying to help her. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

September 15, 2016 — Kevin J. Parker – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
This post follows, almost two years to the day, Rick Erickson’s post of August 29, 2014. As noted by Rick Erickson in his August 29, 2014 post, the Arizona Supreme Court in the Weitz case (2014) had determined that equitable subrogation principles were applicable to enable an earlier-recorded mechanic’s lien to be trumped by a later-recorded bank deed of trust, if the loan secured by the later deed of trust paid off a lien that had been ahead of the mechanic’s lien. In a decision filed August 9, 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals further clarified the scope of such equitable subrogation. In Markham Contracting Co., Inc. v. FDIC, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0752 (August 9, 2016), the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed a situation where a first-recorded deed of trust was followed by a second-recorded mechanic’s lien; and then, after the mechanic’s lien was recorded, a new lender made a secured construction loan that was used, in part, to pay off the loan that was secured by the first-position deed of trust. The key being “in part.” The subsequent lender loaned $4.8 million, but only $2.9 million went to pay off the balance owing on the first-position deed of trust. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker – Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

---