Construction Law

We represent developers, general contractors, subcontractors, building products manufacturers, and real estate sales professionals in all aspects of construction litigation.  Our clients are involved in a range of construction projects, from single family residences up to the largest condominium complex on the Oregon coast.  Whether the case requires a litigator or a coverage lawyer, our attorneys have the skill and experience to meet all our clients’ needs. 
           
Construction is a dynamic practice, requiring familiarity with a variety of tort, contract, regulatory, and warranty issues. We evaluate cases early to access the potential for quick resolution and to maximize each client’s defenses.  We work closely with our clients to develop case strategy, and we emphasize timely and thorough client communication. Our strong working relationships with the attorneys, experts, and mediators who regularly practice in this area enable us to resolve many issues informally, without the time and expense of protracted litigation or complicated motion practice. Although we have a track record of resolving cases short of trial, part of the reason for our success is our proven courtroom skill and expertise.  We realize how expensive litigation can be, and emphasize cost-effective case strategies that take into account the relative risk of each case.  

Representative Matters:

• Defense of a lumber manufacturer in the collapse of a Washington apartment complex.  The studs milled by our client warped and twisted, causing a partial collapse that resulted in significant delay, consequential damages, and property-related damage.  Plaintiff, a homeowner’s association, alleged the studs were not properly kiln-dried; our client contended that the general and the framing subcontractor failed to protect the studs from rain and standing water after they were delivered to the site.  We examined the site and the client's manufacturing facility on the Olympic Peninsula and retained materials experts to assist in the investigation.  As a result, the client was able to reach a favorable resolution in mediation well in advance of trial. 
• Defense of a developer and general contractor for a condominium project on the Oregon coast.  Plaintiffs claimed structural and cosmetic damage to their neighboring property during the installation of steel sheet piles that supported the condominium’s foundation.  Plaintiffs claimed that subsurface vibration generated during installation of the panels weakened their foundation and caused structural damage.  Working closely with structural and geotechnical engineers, we determined that plaintiffs sustained only modest cosmetic damage, and not structural damage. The case settled at trial for our original offer. 
• Defense of a framing subcontractor in a multi-million dollar claim involving the construction of an Oregon assisted care facility.  Excess weight from installation of light concrete flooring caused the facility's flooring to deflect.   Based on our investigation, we established that the deflection and resulting damage were primarily attributable to the architect's design and the general contractor's faulty selection of material.  We sought contribution from those parties, and our client was able to reach a reasonable settlement at mediation and avoid further expense.
• Awarded summary judgment on a $10 million Employer’s Liability Law claim involving a paraplegic man who was injured during the construction of our client's recording studio.  When personal injuries occur on a construction site, Oregon common law intersects with a turn-of-the-last-century Employer's Liability Law statute, which can greatly expand the scope of a contractor's liability and damages exposure.  We focused on the legal relationship between plaintiff's employer and our client, challenging plaintiff's legal status as an "employee" of the client.  The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint on our motion for summary judgment. 
• Defense of a roofing subcontractor in a claim brought by the developer of a large Washington condominium complex.  The developer sued numerous subcontractors, alleging faulty workmanship.  We organized a roofing subcontractor group and developed a unified defense to the claim of faulty workmanship.   Roofing-related damages were minimized and, as a result, we were able to resolve the claim against our client for less than 2% of an estimated Scope of Repair prepared by a neutral party.    
• We have represented many general contractors and specialized subcontractors in a variety of cases involving mold, dust, water intrusion, and EIFS.  In one matter in particular, our general contractor client was sued for water-intrusion damages on an EIFS-clad home.  The Canadian EIFS manufacturer would not participate in the litigation, and we obtained a default judgment.  We associated with Canadian counsel to register the Oregon judgment in Canada and collect on it.  After deducting the monies received from the EIFS manufacturer, our client’s net settlement was nominal in comparison to the damages recovered by the plaintiff.