Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

April 10, 2019 — Aaron D. Lovaas - Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
For years, the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) and its sub-entity, the Nevada Real Estate Commission (“NREC”), have been tasked with administering the licensing procedures applicable to real estate professionals in Nevada, as well as enforcement of the regulations governing business practices, advertising, commissions, license maintenance, and a host of other dayto-day parameters within which the profession operates. Within the past five years, however, the NREC has tasked itself with the publicly stated goal of “protecting” Nevada real estate licensees and the commissions they earn from out-of-state real estate professionals seeking to do business in the Silver State. While efforts to preserve local real estate opportunities for local brokers might seem sound, an international brokerage firm is challenging the foundation of that structure. If they win, the outcome could have huge implications on the real estate industry in Nevada. Businesses, here’s a breakdown of the existing structure and what the challenge is all about. The Existing Regulatory Structure Through amending their own regulations, the NRED and NREC have created a regulatory structure that:

Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any seller (Nevada based or non-Nevada based) of any Nevada real estate;
Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any Nevada resident in the purchase of Nevada real estate; and
Allows non-Nevada licensed real estate brokers to represent non-Nevada purchasers of Nevada real estate only if the out-of-state broker formally affiliates (and therefore shares commissions with) a resident Nevada-licensed broker.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aaron D. Lovaas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com

CGL Coverage for Liquidated Damages and the Contractual Liability Exclusion

October 09, 2023 — Stu Richeson - The Dispute Resolver
Liquidated delay damages are common in construction contracts and are generally imposed when a contractor fails to achieve substantial completion within the time required by the contract. While contracts like the AIA A201-2017 have provisions for extending the time to achieve substantial completion when delays are caused by circumstances beyond the contractor’s control, delays can result from factors other than improper management or planning and the like, for which the owner is not required to give the contractor additional time. Courts are split on whether there is ever coverage under a CGL policy for contractually agreed upon liquidated delay damages. Liquidated delay damages are often excluded under the contractual liability exclusion of most CGL policies. The contractual liability exclusion excludes coverage for “liability for which the Insured is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.” Courts often find the contractual liability exclusion in a CGL policy precludes coverage for liquidated delay damages, because such damages are contractual in nature and are triggered by the failure to bring the contract to substantial completion by a fixed deadline, regardless of the cause of the delay. However, some courts will look to the cause of the delay and find that there is coverage under a CGL policy for liquidated delay damages that are the result of property damage caused by an accident or occurrence. In Clark Const. Grp., Inc. v. Eagle Amalgamated Serv., Inc., 01-2478-DV, 2005 WL 2092998, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2005) a general contractor entered a contract for the renovation of the convention center in Memphis. Part of the project included the demolition of a structure attached to the convention center. The demolition work was improperly performed by a subcontractor and resulted in damage to the convention center. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Phelps
Mr. Richeson may be contacted at stuart.richeson@phelps.com

Boys (and Girls) of Summer: New Residential Solar Energy System Disclosures Take Effect January 1, 2019

October 02, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As we come to the end of Summer, the California Contractors State License Board advises licensees that it has finalized its Solar Energy System Disclosure Document. The Solar Energy System Disclosure Document, required under Business and Professions Code Section 7169 as amended by Assembly Bill 1070 in 2017, requires that the disclosure language of the document be:

Included in all contracts providing for the installation of a “solar energy system” on a residential building;
Included on the front page or cover page of the contract;

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

General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

February 18, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Blythe Golay – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Baral v. Schnitt (filed 2/5/2015, No. B253620), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that California’s anti-SLAPP statute does not authorize the striking of allegations of protected activity in a cause of action that also contains meritorious allegations of non-protected activity not within the purview of the statute. In so holding, the court attempted to resolve, or at least add its voice to, the growing conflict among appellate districts on the issue. A SLAPP lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) seeks to chill or punish the exercise of constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. California’s Legislature enacted the anti-SLAPP statute to permit a defendant to file a special motion to strike as to any cause of action that arises out of an act in furtherance of such rights. In Baral, the plaintiff alleged that his business partner had violated fiduciary duties in usurping the plaintiff’s ownership and management interests in their jointly owned company, so that the defendant could benefit from a secret sale of the company. The complaint alleged that the defendant hired a public accounting firm and prevented the plaintiff from participating in its investigation in order to force the plaintiff's cooperation of the sale of the company. The defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion, seeking to strike all references to the accounting firm's audit. The trial court denied the motion, on the ground that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to causes of action, not allegations. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Blythe Golay Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com. Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

“But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

June 21, 2021 — Justin K. Fortescue - White and Williams
While we are all getting used to the “new normal” of working remotely and relying on emails for almost all communications, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provides arbitration practitioners with a stark reminder – the “notice” requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) will be strictly enforced and providing notice of a motion to vacate via email may not qualify as proper service. In O'Neal Constructors, LLC v. DRT Am., LLC, 991 F.3d 1376 (11th Cir. 2021), O’Neal Constructors, LLC (O’Neal) and DRT America (DRT) entered into a contract containing an arbitration provision. Following a dispute, the parties went to arbitration and, on January 7, 2019, the panel issued an award requiring DRT to pay O’Neal a total of $1,415,193. The amount awarded to O’Neal consisted of two parts: $765,102 for the underlying contract dispute and $650,090 for reimbursement of O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. While DRT paid O’Neal the first portion of the award, DRT refused to pay the portion that related to O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. On April 4, 2019, as a result of DRT’s refusal to pay O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees, O’Neal filed a motion to confirm the award in Georgia state court (which was subsequently removed to the Northern District of Georgia). The next day, in a separate action, DRT filed a motion to vacate the attorneys’ fees portion of the award and, that same night, DRT’s counsel emailed O’Neal’s counsel a “courtesy copy” of DRT’s memorandum in support of the motion to vacate. A few weeks later, on April 30, 2019 (i.e., more than three months after the award was issued), DRT served O’Neal (via U.S. Marshall) with a copy of the motion to vacate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams
Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

Mitsubishi Estate to Rebuild Apartments After Defects Found

March 19, 2014 — Kathleen Chu and Takahiko Hyuga – Bloomberg
Mitsubishi Estate Co. (8802), Japan’s biggest developer by market value, will rebuild a Tokyo residential complex where it stopped selling apartments that went for as much as 350 million yen ($3.4 million) after finding defects. The reconstruction will take about three to four years to complete, and builder Kajima Corp. will be in charge of the project and cover the cost, said Masayuki Watanabe, a spokesman at Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Estate. The building was constructed by Kajima along with Kandenko (1942) Co., according to the developer. Mitsubishi Estate stopped selling apartments in the building in central Tokyo’s upscale Aoyama neighborhood after finding it needed repairs, including to some of the pipes, the developer said in an e-mail on Feb. 3. Eighty-three out of 86 units were under contract and were expected to be handed over to the owners on March 20, the company said last month. Ms. Chu may be contacted at kchu2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hyuga may be contacted at thyuga@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen Chu and Takahiko Hyuga, Bloomberg

OSHA Penalties—What Happened with International Nutrition

April 15, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
For those of you in and around Omaha, you recall the tragic collapse of International Nutrition’s plant in early 2014, killing two workers and injuring several others. OSHA swept onto the scene and issued citations. Surprisingly, the penalties totaled only $120,000. While a large sum, one would think two deaths and a score of injuries would generate a larger fine. International Nutrition appealed the penalties and they have now been reduced to $78,000, about a 1/3 reduction. Below, I’ll set forth what happened. The Original Penalties International Nutrition was originally fined $120,650.00 for citations ranging from willful, serious, to other-than-serious. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

December 23, 2023 — Hugo Fraga - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
On May 30, 2023, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, issued a decision that appears to expand a contractor’s obligation with respect to WSDOT notice and claim procedures. In Graham Contracting, Ltd. v. City of Federal Way, No. 83494-1-I, 2023 WL 3721171 (Wash. Ct. App. May 30, 2023) (Unpublished), the Court held that under the 2016 WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (“Standard Specifications”), a Contractor must protest the actions of not only the “Engineer” but also the actions of any person or organization acting on behalf of the Owner. This case arises out of a public construction contract in which Graham Contracting Ltd (“Graham”) built a multi-million dollar roadway improvement for the City of Federal Way along a stretch of Pacific Highway. The appeal was from the trial court’s granting of the City’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims by Graham for extra time and money due to delays and impacts to Graham’s construction of the Project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hugo Fraga, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Fraga may be contacted at hugo.fraga@acslawyers.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES