Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The San Bernardino office of the California District Attorney is partnering with the California Contractor’s State License Board to check if subcontractors are holding the required workers compensation insurance. The High Desert Daily Press reports that the process of checking at sites has been going on for several months.

Investigators visit sites and ask supervisors to provide a list of subcontractors which the state then checks for compliance. One worker was quoted that insurance inspections were so rare that he had never seen one before, despite 20 years in construction.

On one day, investigators in two teams visited fourteen construction sites and reviewed the insurance status of twenty-two firms. Three were found out of compliance and stop work orders were issued.

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

White and Williams recognized with Multiple Honorees in the Chambers 2023 USA Guide

June 26, 2023 — White and Williams LLP
Chambers has released their 2023 USA guide and ranked White and Williams as a leader among national law firms. The firm was recognized for recent achievements in Real Estate Finance and Insurance in Pennsylvania, and Construction in Maryland. “We are very pleased to have some of our most talented attorneys recognized again by Chambers”, said Andrew Susko, the Firm’s Managing Partner. In addition, to practice area recognition, nine lawyers were recognized and ranked highly in the 2023 Chambers USA guide from Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. In Philadelphia, Timothy E. Davis, Partner and Chair of the Business Department, and Nancy Sabol Frantz, Chair of the Real Estate and Finance practice were recognized for their achievements in Real Estate: Finance; and, Stephen Coury, Connecticut Office Managing Partner, was ranked among the top Real Estate professionals in Connecticut. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

October 07, 2019 — Josh Cohen - California Construction Law Blog
Last month a California Court of Appeals clarified that a property owner facing eminent domain is only required to prove partial loss of goodwill, not total loss of goodwill, to be entitled to a trial on the amount of goodwill lost. Yum Yum Donuts operated a shop in Los Angeles that was subject to eminent domain by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to make way for light railway track. At trial, Yum Yum sought loss of goodwill as part of its condemnation damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510. At trial the MTA’s expert testified that Yum Yum could have reduced its goodwill loss if it relocated to one of three alternative locations rather than simply closing the shop. But the expert conceded that even if Yum Yum had relocated, it would have lost some goodwill. Yum Yum refused to relocate, arguing that its relocation costs would render the move unprofitable. The trial court found that Yum Yum’s failure to mitigate its damages barred Yum Yum from having a jury trial to recover any goodwill damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Josh Cohen, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jcohen@wendel.com

Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

July 13, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown. An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:

In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.

U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

From the Ground Up

March 06, 2022 — Maggie Murphy - Construction Executive
As a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, Mari Borrero knows a thing or two about stepping up to a challenge. She describes her time in the military as “one of those milestones that changes your life,” and credits the experience with turning her from a self-described “entitled teenager” into the woman she is today: fearless, bold and relentless in pursuit of her dreams. A career in the construction industry was never on the table for Borrero, who, after being honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, worked as a hospice-care coordinator and then a teacher in support of her then-third-grade son. The common thread in all these occupations? A genuine desire to put the needs of others before her own. Today, Borrero says she can’t imagine doing anything other than what she now calls work—owning and operating a construction business, Auburn, Washington–based American Abatement & Demo. Easing Transitions Born in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, Borrero was five when her mother moved the family to Dallas to seek life-saving treatment at Children’s Medical Center Dallas for her brother, who had a rare kidney disease. A local church supported the family, providing housing, food and clothing until they were able to transition into their own space. Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Murphy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

September 18, 2018 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The risk that a contractor’s client may refuse to pay the full contract balance is a day-to-day reality for every contractor. That risk – and the stress it causes in the mind of any contractor – is tempered by the knowledge that Washington statutes provide contractors with ready access to the courts to file a lawsuit and be fully compensated for the work performed. But a recent case provides a grim reminder that the same statutes that giveth court access can also taketh away. Washington’s Contractor Registration Act (“WCRA”)[1] requires every contractor engaging or offering to engage in services in Washington to register with the Department of Labor and Industries (”L&I”). In order to sue to collect compensation for work or to enforce a contract, a contractor must prove that he/she “was a duly registered contractor and held a current and valid certificate of registration at the time he or she contracted for the performance of such work or entered into such contract.”[2] In order to conclude that a contractor has substantially comply with these requirements, a court must find that: (1) The department has on file the information required by RCW 18.27.030; (2) the contractor has at all times had in force a current bond or other security as required by RCW 18.27.040; and (3) the contractor has at all times had in force current insurance as required by RCW 18.27.050.[3] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

October 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the Windmill Harbour area of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, Danielle Smith is repairing her home after “spending almost $25,000 on unsuccessful legal battles and two years to secure a loan,” according to the Beaufort Gazette. The contractor who custom built the home was unlicensed, and “[t]he synthetic stucco used to build the house was faulty, causing water damage throughout that will cost $500,000 and six months to repair.” Back in 2008, Smith’s case reached the state Supreme Court. The court ruled against her, reasoning “that the former owner, who had hired subcontractors to build the house, could not be held liable for the damage because he built it as a private home and had originally intended to never sell it.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

September 17, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s not like we didn’t warn you. In Jones v. Sorenson, Case No. C084870 (August 2, 2018), homeowner Danita Sorenson discovered to her chagrin that she had unwittingly become the employer of Mary Jones, who had been hired by Odette Miranda doing business as Designs by Leo to trim some trees, and was liable for Jones’ injuries when Jones fell off a ladder provided by Miranda. “How can this be?” you might ask. The reason, as it turns out, is simple. Miranda was required to hold a Class D-49 Tree Service Contractor’s license in order to contract with Sorenson to trim her trees, and because Miranda did not hold that license (or, for that matter, any contractor’s license), Sorenson automatically was deemed the employer of Jones under Labor Code Section 2750.5 and, therefore, liable for her injuries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES