Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects

March 11, 2024 — Patrick McKnight - The Dispute Resolver
Recent reforms to certain state retainage laws have reduced the lawful amount of withholding permitted on construction projects. In theory, retainage allows an owner to mitigate the risk of incomplete or defective work by withholding a certain portion of payment until the construction project is substantially complete. Recent statutory developments in Washington, New York, and Georgia represent significant changes in how much an owner may retain on applicable construction projects in those jurisdictions. The details of each state’s retainage laws vary in many important respects. Most states set caps at 5% or 10%, with important variations depending on the type of project and the amount of progress completed. Some states require retainage to be held in an escrow account, but most do not. Many federal construction projects allow up to 10% retainage, while other federal agencies do not require any retention. See 48 CFR § 52.232-5(e) - Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts. The ongoing motivation for retainage reform is typically framed in terms of reducing delays in getting payment to subcontractors who complete their scope of work on time and free from defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend

February 28, 2022 — Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
This post in our Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series discusses the Montana Supreme Court’s consideration of an insurer’s duty to defend in National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). For 67 years, W.R. Grace & Company’s mining operations spread asbestos through the town of Libby, Montana, causing elevated rates of asbestosis and asbestos-related cancer in Libby residents – even among those who never worked in the mine. The Environmental Protection Agency deemed the Libby Mine the “most significant single source of asbestos exposure” in US history. In 2000, Libby residents began filing lawsuits against the State of Montana, alleging that the State had failed to warn them about the mine’s danger, and this failure contributed to their bodily injuries. Id. at 521-22. The Libby plaintiffs’ asbestos exposures and related injuries had occurred decades earlier, and so the State searched its storage units for records of any potentially applicable insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

September 22, 2016 — William L. Porter – Porter Law Group Bulletin
For almost the last sixty years, the standard for bidding on California construction projects has been governed by the landmark case of Drennan v. Star Paving (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409; which generally states that the contractor bidding to perform work for a project owner is entitled to rely on the bids of subcontractors in formulating its own bid to do the work. Under the equitable legal doctrine of “promissory estoppel”, which serves as the foundation of the Drennan case, even though there was no actual “contract” between the contractor and subcontractor at the time of bid, the contractor was entitled to enforce the subcontractor’s bid in reliance on this doctrine. For bidding purposes, promissory estoppel serves as an equitable substitute for an actual contract. The courts have, since that time, allowed promissory estoppel to act as a substitute for the contract in public bidding because, in equity, when a contractor “reasonably” relies on a subcontractor’s bid in formulating its own bid, it would be unjust to allow the subcontractor to withdraw a bid on which the contractor had relied in submitting its own successful bid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law write Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly addressing the question of “whether defective construction constitutes an ‘occurrence’ (and therefore may be covered) under liability insurance policies.” They note that some courts have held that construction defects are not an occurrence but instead are the “natural consequence of performing substandard work.” Other courts conclude that while construction defects are not occurrences, “the resulting damage may be covered because it was fortuitous and unintended.” And, finally, other courts have concluded that “defective construction work itself is accidental and the inured rarely expects construction defects.” Mandel and Raab put forth that “these decisions essentially provide insured with huge, unintended and unfair windfalls – performance bonds for basically no premium.” Legislatures have also looked at this issue, passing laws that mandate that construction defects are occurrences. These are all fairly recent and the courts have yet to address these laws, and Mandel and Raab note that “it is unclear what their ultimate effect on the ‘occurrence’ issue will be.” They do not expect the laws to end litigation over whether construction defects are occurrences. Finally, they discuss what the ultimate results of these court decisions and laws will be. Insurers might write more policy exclusions, or increase premiums, or even cease insuring construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

September 15, 2016 — Kevin J. Parker – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
This post follows, almost two years to the day, Rick Erickson’s post of August 29, 2014. As noted by Rick Erickson in his August 29, 2014 post, the Arizona Supreme Court in the Weitz case (2014) had determined that equitable subrogation principles were applicable to enable an earlier-recorded mechanic’s lien to be trumped by a later-recorded bank deed of trust, if the loan secured by the later deed of trust paid off a lien that had been ahead of the mechanic’s lien. In a decision filed August 9, 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals further clarified the scope of such equitable subrogation. In Markham Contracting Co., Inc. v. FDIC, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0752 (August 9, 2016), the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed a situation where a first-recorded deed of trust was followed by a second-recorded mechanic’s lien; and then, after the mechanic’s lien was recorded, a new lender made a secured construction loan that was used, in part, to pay off the loan that was secured by the first-position deed of trust. The key being “in part.” The subsequent lender loaned $4.8 million, but only $2.9 million went to pay off the balance owing on the first-position deed of trust. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker – Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

May 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Architectural Record, the Harmon Hotel, part of the CityCenter hotel-casino-entertainment complex on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, “is being razed without ever opening.” MGM Resorts International will be demolishing “the unfinished 27-floor, oval-shaped tower following a protracted legal battle with its contractor, Tutor Perini Corp., over building defects.” Demolition is expected to cost $11.5 million, while the “incomplete construction” had cost $279 million. Problems for the hotel began after the discovery “that reinforcing steel was improperly installed on 15 building floors during construction.” Architectural Record reported that a third-party inspector “had falsified 62 daily reports between March and July of 2008 stating that things were okay when they were not. The findings prompted a temporary project shut-down and eventual building redesign.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Delaware District Court Finds CGL Insurer Owes Condo Builder a Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims — Based on the Subcontractor Exception to the Your Work Exclusion

October 04, 2021 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Laura Rossi - White and Williams
On September 7, 2021, in one of the few decisions addressing the scope of coverage for faulty workmanship under Delaware law, the Delaware District Court denied an insurer’s motion seeking a declaration that it neither needed to defend nor indemnify an insured-builder under a commercial general liability policy. In this declaratory judgment action, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Zonko Builders, the insurer argued that the ongoing underlying action failed to properly plead an “occurrence” in a case alleging damages to a condominium caused by faulty workmanship involving subcontractors.* Zonko Builders (Zonko) served as the general contractor, supervising subcontractors. The Condominium Association sued Zonko for damages allegedly resulting from design and construction deficiencies. The motion was opposed by the Condominium Association, which cross-moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. In AE-Newark Associates, L.P. v. CNA Insurance Companies, 2001 Del. Super. LEXIS 370 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2001), the Delaware Superior Court found that an insured was entitled to coverage for damages arising from a faulty roof system installed by a subcontractor on behalf of the insured general contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Laura Rossi, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Bad Faith In Filing Interpleader

August 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit determined that filing an interpleader action in the face of multiple claims against the policy holder did not constitute bad faith. Purscell v. Tico Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10438 (8th Cir. June 22, 2015). Ben Purscell's vehicle collided with another vehicle, in which Tim and Amy Carr were riding. The Carrs were injured, and Purscell's passenger, Amy Priesendorf, was killed. Before the accident, Priesendorf had stretched her leg over and put her foot on the accelerator, on top of Purscell's foot. As the other car approached, Purscell swerved to avoid an accident, but the two vehicles collided. Purscell had a policy with Infinity Assurance Insurance Company. The policy limited liability to $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident for bodily injury. Infinity put the full $50,000 per accident limits on reserve, with $25,000 designated to Priesendorf's fatality and $25,000 designated to the Carrs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES