Washington Construction Law Blog

This case involves the interplay between two fairly clear rules -- that a lien foreclosure action must be filed within 8 months of recording the lien (RCW 60.04.141) and that if a prior foreclosure suit is already pending, a subsequent lien claimant can't file a new suit but instead must apply to join in the existing case (RCW 60.04.171).

The window supplier in this case recorded its lien on October 30, 2003 and obtained an order allowing it to intervene in a prior pending case about 7 months later.  So far so good.  But for reasons unexplained in the opinion, the claimant did not actually file its answer and cross claim until much later (November 2004), after the expiration of the 8 month period.

Invoking all sorts of well-established rules, Division 1 took no mercy and dismissed the lien.  It was true that the claimant had timely obtained permission to intervene.  But no pleading in fact was filed until the 8 month period had lapsed.  The Court stressed that each and every claimant must separately meet the 8 month test, and rejected the window supplier's attempt to rely on the prior suit as evidence of compliance.

Copy of opinion also available here Download file

This new case from Division 1 arose out of a condo project.  After settling its claims with the developer, the GC sued several subcontractors for breach of contract and indemnity.  All but one of the subs settled with the GC.  The remaining sub went to trial and lost.  On the sub's appeal, the Court of Appeals held:

1. The GC's breach of contract claim vs. the sub accrued (and thus began to run, for purposes of the 6 year statute of limitation) at the earlier point when the sub itself performed the defective work, not at the later time of substantial completion of the overall project.
2. On the GC's indemnity claim, the Court of Appeals refused to give the sub an offset based on the settlements the GC had achieved with the other subcontractors, because the sub failed to prove that the other settlements paid the GC for damages caused by its work.
3. The Court held that the way the trial court apportioned responsibility for the GC's legal fees -- apportioning 1/13 of the total to the sub because there were a total of 13 subs on the project -- was arbitrary and without basis.

Download file

In two recent decisions, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims engaged in some heavy duty contract interpretation -- focusing primarily on what constitutes a patent ambiguity in plans which bidders are required to bring to the owner's attention before submitting bids.

In this case, the contractor was disallowed any extra costs because the Court concluded that the specifications were clear.  Just to give you some indication of how closely the Court parsed the language, a key part of the ruling was based on the absence of a comma in a particular sentence (which the Court took to mean that the final clause "as indicated in the drawings" modified only the noun immediately prior to this subordinate clause not the entire sentence).

This case ended more happily for the contractor when the Court ruled that the distortion of the standing seam metal roof (which the contractor was to provide under a performance specification) was actually caused by flaws in the owner-furnished design specification for the building structure. 

Not exactly a news flash but worth noting all the same:  today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court once again affirms the virtual supremacy of arbitration clauses.  

Here, the dispute revolved around TV's "Judge Alex" and an entertainment lawyer.  It seems the good Judge failed to pay his counsel.  To collect the debt, the lawyer filed an arbitration demand under the arbitration clause in the contract.  The good Judge said that the contract as a whole was null and void because the lawyer was not properly licensed under a California statute that regulates talent agents -- and on that ground sought to have the dispute decided by a state administrative tribunal that has original jurisdiction over such issues.

The good Judge lost & will have to arbitrate his claim that the contract was null and void.

This case won't win any prizes for ease of comprehension, that's for sure.  But it does finally settle the issue of what pay classification certain electricians fell into at the McCaw Hall opera job.  Were the workers who pulled low voltage wire of lengths greater than 10 feet "inside wiremen" (higher prevailing wage pay classification) or "electronic technicians" (lower PW rate)?  The workers won.  Check out the Court's reasoning here.