Archive for the ‘Washington’ Category

Residential Sprinkler Bill Resurrected in Washington House

On March 2, 2011 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr

Two years ago we wrote a blog post about 2009 House Bill 2224, introduced in Olympia by Representative Simpson, and aimed to “eradicate barriers that prevent the voluntary installation of sprinkler systems in private residences by promoting education regarding the effectiveness of residential fire sprinklers.”

While the bill had a lot of support in the House and Senate (see voting history here), it never got to the governor’s desk, and largely fizzled out.

The concept is back from the dead, however, being introduced on January 18, 2011, by Representative Van De Wege as 2011 House Bill 1295. Compare this bill’s synopsis with the 2009 summary:

…to eliminate barriers to the voluntary installation of sprinkler systems in private residences. The bill provides financial and regulatory incentives to homeowners, builders, and water purveyors for voluntarily installing the systems. It also exempts a public water system from liability for damages resulting from shutting off water to a residential home with an installed fire sprinkler system.

It’s virtually identical.

The 2011 Bill appears to be moving through the chambers a bit more quickly than its 2009 counterpart, and also has a companion bill in the Senate’s chambers (SB 5206).

Nationwide, residential fire sprinklers are getting more popular, and it’s becoming more and more likely that government regulation over these installations will expand as time goes on. Take, for example, what the U.S. Fire Administration (through FEMA) states as follows on the topic:

It is the official position of the U.S. Fire Administration that all American should be protected against death, injury and property loss resulting from fire in their residences. All homes should be equipped with smoke alarms and automatic fire sprinklers…

We’ll keep you posted on any progress to this legislation.

Posted in:     Building Codes, Regulations, Washington  /  Tags: , ,   /   Leave a comment

Washington Supreme Court Blog Review’s 2010 Docket

On January 25, 2011 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr

The Washington Supreme Court publishes an excellent blog that is frequently updated to provide readers with information about the justices and their cases. While a lot of their docket is review of criminal decisions and sentences, they do of course also review civil matter consequential to the construction industry. We highlighted one example just recently, when the Supreme Court overturned law disallowing contractual parties to waive judicial review of arbitration awards.

In any event, I was interested in a post last week that reviewed the Supreme Court’s 2010 docket, breaking down the voting tendencies of the justices and more. If you’re interested in Washington jurisprudence and the tendency of the state’s high court, check out the post and the great information therein.

Posted in:     Washington  /  Tags: ,   /   2 Comments

Arbitration Review May Be Limited…But It Can’t Be Waived in Washington

On January 25, 2011 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr

The Washington Supreme Court wrote an opinion interpreting the Washington Arbitration Act last week in Optimer Int’l, Inc. v. RP Bellevue, LLC.

In this case, a landlord and tenant submitted themselves to an arbitration proceeding pursuant to their contract, and the loser at arbitration wasn’t satisfied with the award. They sought judicial review of the holding in superior court, and were denied this review at the trial and appellate level because of a clause within the contract’s arbitration provisions that “waived” the right to appeal any arbitration award.

The appellant and Supreme Court ruled that the “waiver” did not – and can not  – waive the right to seek judicial review of an arbitration award as statutorily allowed by the Washington Arbitration Act.

To the extent this ruling contradicts a previous appellant case, Harvey v. University of Washington, 118 Wn. App. 315, 76 P.3d, the Washington Supreme Court said that this case is overruled.

The limitations of the ruling in Optimer Int’l is important.

  1. The case construes the Washington Arbitration Act, because that is the law in place when the arbitration took place. However, this has been replaced with the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA), which the Supreme Court indicated they need not consider.
  2. The review allowed by the Washington Arbitration Act is very limited, allowing review for only specific errors with the award (fraud, bias, etc.).

While this case does not address the RUAA, I would think we’d get a similar result under the new statutory scheme.

Posted in:     Arbitration & ADR, Washington  /  Tags: , , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

Lien Bill Introduced in Washington Legislature To Offset Williams v Athletic Field

On January 25, 2011 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr

Williams v. Athletic’s Field took the Washington mechanic lien world by storm last year, when it declared a mechanic lien invalid even though the claimant used the specific form provided by the statute. We’ve written about this opinion at length on this blog, and noted that the decision is now being reviewed by the Washington Supreme Court.

Today, Representative Moeller introduced a bill “addressing the notice requirements for claiming a mechanics’ or materialmen’s lien,” leapfrogging the Washington Supreme Court to legislatively address the impact of Athletic’s Field. House Bill 1475 can be viewed here. It’s schedule for public hearing in the House Committee on Labor & Workforce Development on January 28th.

Read the original text of the bill here.

The proposed changes are quite simple. When setting forth the statutory form for acknowledgment, the proposed bill would separately provide acknowledgment language for individuals and corporations.

The acknowledgment language that currently exists in the law should be used for “An acknowledgment for an individual claimant, an attorney of an individual claimant, or the administrator, representative, or agent of the trustees of an employee benefit plan…”

For a corporate claimant, the following acknowledgment language is provided in the bill:

_________, being sworn, says: I am the present (or vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other authorized officer or agent, as the case may be) of _________ that executed the claim of a lien, and I acknowledge this claim to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned; I am authorized to execute this claim and the seal affixed is the corporate seal of the corporation; I have read or heard the forgoing claim, read and know the contents thereof, and believe the same to be true and correct and that the claim of lien is not frivolous and is made with reasonable cause, and is not clearly excessive under penalty of perjury.

The law also provides that a party or entity that is not specifically identified in the statute with associated acknowledgment language “shall modify the pattern form to comply with the acknowledgment requirements pursuant to chapter 64.08 RCW”

If passed, the act would take effect on January 1, 2012. We’ll monitor and update you on the status of this act.

Posted in:     Mechanics Lien, Washington  /  Tags: , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

Washington Court of Appeals Confirms It’s Tough To Argue Around the Model Disclosure Statement Requirements

On November 15, 2010 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr

In previous posts, I’ve written about the requirement for contractors contracting with property owners to provide a Model Disclosure Statement (Requirement in RCW 18.27.114(1)).

A case decided Division III of the Court of Appeals last year addresses a challenge to this act made by a contractor, and highlights just how difficult it is for folks to argue that the Model Disclosure Statement is not required on a qualifying project.

In this case, AWR Construction v. Labor & Industries, a contractor contracted to replace the roof of an apartment building. The owner of the apartment building – while not acting as a contractor on the project – was actually a registered contractor.

The Model Disclosure Statement must be provided whenever a contractor contracts with an owner. It is not required when a contractor is contracting with other contractors, suppliers, or the like.

AWR Construction’s argument here was that the property owner was a registered contractor, and thus, the disclosure requirement did not apply.

While this at first may sound like a clear position, there’s actually a decent justification behind the argument. The Model Disclosure Statement is required for the public’s interest, to disclose certain things to the public that is not known by them…but is known by contractors (i.e. that a lien can be filed against a project by subs, even after payment to the prime).

So, if the purpose of the statute is to disclose this type of information to the public, then why require this disclosure to a registered contractor?

Ordinarily, the disclosure need not be delivered to other contractors. The Court of Appeals found this was not the case, however, when the registered contractor was acting in the role of an owner, and not a contractor – as was the case here.

The disclosure requirement has nothing to do with the parties’ actual registration (or lack thereof), but everything to do with the role of the contractor’s customer. If the client is the owner of the property, the disclosure must be sent.

Therefore:   Send Model Disclosure Statement…or Else!

Related articles
Posted in:     Filing Requirements, Washington  /  Tags: , , ,   /   Leave a comment
« Previous Page
Next Page »