We wrote about the plans to amend the Americans With Disabilities Act on January 31, 2017, to deal with so-called drive-by lawsuits claiming that there are illegal physical barriers to access. Now we have the language in the proposed bill, HR 620. This differs from the bill that was submitted in Congress in 2015 in ways that will please property owners even more. Continue Reading
With Portland weathering one of its top-ten snowstorms of all time earlier this month, one question that landlords and prospective tenants alike are asking is how to plan for snow and ice storms in their leases. Continue Reading
Businesses are required to comply with the obligations under Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”)—there cannot be discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation. When a plaintiff prevails in an ADA lawsuit, the court awards attorney fees. In recent years, the number of lawsuits filed to complain about alleged violations under Title III has skyrocketed, especially in Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California. Continue Reading
Last week, my colleagues wrote about the Whatcom County v. Hirst decision by the Washington Supreme Court. As a consequence of Hirst, if public water is not available to serve a development, a county must independently verify that water from wells is available before it issues permits, even for single-family or small-development construction that, in the past, relied on permit-exempt wells. No longer can a county assume an adequate water supply, even if the Department of Ecology has not closed the basin to new development. This decision could interject uncertainty, delay, and cost into the land use permitting process. Continue Reading
In a blog post dated February 17, 2016, we wrote about a decision of the Washington Court of Appeals in Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board favorable to developers. At issue in the case was the Washington State Department of Ecology’s rule that required application of new stormwater regulations to all development proposals submitted before July 1, 2015, if the developer does not start construction by June 30, 2020. The court of appeals took issue with Ecology’s rule, and held that the new stormwater regulations do not apply to “vested” developments. An owner vests its development proposal on the date it submits a fully complete land use application to a county or city. To “vest” means to fix the rules that apply to the development at the time of application. Any later-enacted land use control ordinances or regulations do not apply to a vested development. Key to the court of appeals’ decision was its holding that a developer vests to “land use control ordinances,” with the finding that stormwater regulations are land use control ordinances. Continue Reading
Division III acknowledges hairline cracks in Mike M. Johnson rule.
“Close enough” only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, and nowhere is that more true than when Washington courts are interpreting notice and claim procedures in construction contracts. As a result of the Washington State Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Mike M. Johnson, Inc. v. Spokane County, Washington follows a rule of uniquely strict contract construction, whereby a contractor’s failure to follow exactly any proscribed notice and claim provision of the contract can doom the contractor’s later claims for extra work, even if the owner had actual notice of the claims and was not prejudiced by the failure to follow all claims procedures perfectly. The opinion has been oft-criticized, and there have even been attempts to overturn it legislatively, but Mike M. Johnson remains good law, and a trap for unwary contractors. Continue Reading
It has been generally assumed that only licensed contractors were entitled to file lien claims in the state of Washington for work they performed on real property for which they were not paid in full.1 That assumption has now been discarded in the recent decision Guillen v. Pearson, decided August 16, 2016.
In Guillen v. Pearson, ABSI Builders, Inc., a framing subcontractor, was hired on an apartment construction project by the project’s owner and general contractor, Milestone at Wynnstone, LLC. When ABSI did not pay its laborers’ wages, five ABSI laborers filed a construction lien against Milestone’s property and then sued to foreclose the lien. Milestone argued the traditional view that only licensed contractors that contract to perform work on real property have construction lien rights under RCW 60.04.021, and that employees of such contractors do not. However, the Court broke with the traditional view and chose to interpret RCW 60.04.021 broadly under the plain meaning of the statute which used the words “any person furnishing labor.” Continue Reading
On October 26, 2016, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a general judgment and money award in favor of a general contractor because (1) the general contractor had failed to support its claim for damages for bonding and insurance costs with sufficient evidence, and (2) the money award improperly included a contractual markup on costs that was not specified in the parties’ contract. Big River Construction, Inc. v. City of Tillamook, 281 Or App 787, __ P3d __ (2016). The court remanded the case for a retrial of damages. Continue Reading
Portland is quickly joining the ranks of American cities with the most significant construction projects.
According to a report Friday from the Seattle Times, Portland now ranks seventh in the nation in the number of construction cranes—just behind San Francisco and Chicago, and ahead of larger cities ranging from Denver and Phoenix to Houston and Dallas. But while Portland rises in this development metric, it still lags behind Seattle, which leads every other city in the nation by 45 percent or more.
Today the Washington State Department of Ecology adopted a new rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from major sources.
Beginning in 2017, entities that emit more than 100,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year must reduce their emissions by 1.7 percent each year. Entities with lower emissions will be phased in over two decades. Continue Reading