Washington Construction Law Blog

With the rise of condo defect cases came the phenomenon of claims based on technical violations of plans or applicable codes without much in the way of resulting damage to the structure.  This case sheds some light on whether a plaintiff can still maintain a breach of contract action for money recovery under these circumstances.  The answer seems to be that a breach by itself is not enough.  Damage must be shown.

The case also has some pearls of wisdom on the following issues:

1. Who decides -- judge or jury -- the amount of legal fees to be awarded when the fees are sought as an element of "damages" under an indemnity clause rather than under a prevailing party fee clause?  Answer:  the jury.
2. What are the elements of an enforceable contract where -- as often seems to happen -- the deal arises out of informal communications without final mutual signatures?  Check out the discussion.
3. Does an indemnity clause covering "any and all claims" cover both tort and contract claims?  Answer: yep.

A copy of the opinion also available here Download file

Yet another case in a stream of cases involving defunct subcontractors & whether they can sued or be sued after dissolution of the business entity (here, an LLC).  The answer, generally speaking, is no -- meaning in this case that the dissolved sub's indemnity claim against yet another sub on the same job was dismissed because the dissolved sub had no right to sue.

A copy of the opinion can also be accessed here Download file

GeoEngineers got into a billing dispute with its developer client and filed an action to recover approximately $80,000 in unpaid invoices related to work investigating the feasibility of building on lots located in a slide-sensitive zone.  The client returned the favor with a counterclaim, alleging the engineer had first said the dewatering system would cost only $1 million whereas the final bid for the system turned out to be $6.5 million, making the development economically nonviable.  GeoEngineers won at the trial court level on summary judgment

The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering a full trial.  The Court held the client should have an opportunity to prove at trial that the engineer violated the professional standard of care by not adequately disclosing the evolving & escalating cost of the dewatering system in a timely manner. 

A copy of the opinion is also available here Download file

Fluor Daniel has lost its appeal to obtain prejudgment interest on an arbitration award entered against the Department of Corrections.  The Supreme Court held that interest does not begin to accrue on an arbitration award until the award is turned into a court judgment.  

Previous coverage of this case by WCL is found here and a copy of the Supreme Court's opinion can be downloaded here Download file

Under Washington law, an owner must have an existing structure surveyed for the presence of asbestos prior to any renovation or demolition (RCW 49.26.013).  In this case, SPU hired Prezant to conduct the survey.  When Prezant finished the survey (and abatement of discovered asbestos), SPU brought in Democon for the demolition and during that operation 10 workers were exposed to asbestos which had not been detected by Prezant.

L&I cited Prezant for a serious violation of WISHA and associated regulations and Division 1 affirmed, holding that Prezant's certified inspector failed to conduct the survey in accordance with applicable rules.  Specifically, the inspector failed to take samples from the vinyl floor on the second floor because the inspector believed (incorrectly) that the flooring was the same color or texture as the sample he had obtained from the first floor.

Copy of decision also available here Download file