This article originally appeared in the Spring 2022 issue of Construction Law, the newsletter of the WSBA Construction Law Section. Read the article on WSBA.org In Conway Const. Co. v. City of Puyallup, 197 Wn.2d 825, 490 P.3d 221 (2021), the Supreme Court of Washington considered several issues related to whether the City of Puyallup

This article is excerpted from the Spring 2022 issue of Construction Law, the newsletter of the WSBA Construction Law Section. Read the full article on WSBA.org Co-Written By Emily Yoshiwara – Groff Murphy PLLC and Evan Brown – Stoel Rives LLP In PELLCO Construction, Inc. v. Cornerstone General Contractors, Inc., 19 Wn. App. 2d 1024

The Washington Supreme Court recently ruled in NOVA Contracting, Inc. v. City of Olympia that WSDOT Standard Specification 1-4.05 makes no exception to the written notice requirements for claims for expectancy and consequential damages. NOVA entered a contract with the City to replace a deteriorating culvert.  The Contract contained a “notice of protest” provision consisting

This article originally appeared in the Fall 2018 issue of Construction Law, the newsletter of the WSBA Construction Law Section. In Afoa v. Port of Seattle (Afoa II), 421 P.3d 903, 2018 WL 3469072 (2018), the Washington Supreme Court considered whether the Port of Seattle was vicariously liable for breaches of a nondelegable duty by

While many corporations in the federal contracting arena have been expecting regulations to further limit Federal False Claims Act (FCA) liability, those expectations have been called into question by a new federal regulation released last week aimed at doubling False Claims Act penalties. Raised by the obscure Railroad Retirement Board, which infrequently generates FCA cases

In an en banc decision filed July 7, 2015, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s original dismissal of consolidated qui tam suits brought by whistleblowers, alleging that their former employer, Kinetic Concepts, Inc., had fraudulently claimed reimbursements from Medicare. See US ex rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (12-55396) and US ex rel. Godecke v. Kinetic Concepts,