Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

April 10, 2019 — Thomas Cronin - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a purchaser of a newly constructed home could not assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor where the subcontractor had no contractual relationship with the purchaser. Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, ¶ 1. The decision overruled Minton v. The Richards Group of Chicago, which held that a purchaser who “has no recourse to the builder-vendor and has sustained loss due to the faulty and latent defect in their new home caused by the subcontractor” could assert a claim of a breach of the warranty of habitability against the subcontractor. 116 Ill. App. 3d 852, 855 (1983). In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n, the plaintiff alleged that the condo building had several latent defects which made individual units and common areas unfit for habitation. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 3. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that privity should not be a factor in determining whether a claim for a breach of the warranty of habitability can be asserted. Id. at ¶ 19. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that claims for a breach warranty of habitability should not be governed by contract law but should instead be governed by tort law analogous to application of strict liability. Id. The Court reasoned that the economic loss rule, as articulated in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69, 91 (1982), refuted the plaintiff’s argument that the implied warranty of habitability should be covered by tort law. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 20. Under the economic loss rule, a plaintiff “cannot recover for solely economic loss under the tort theories of strict liability, negligence, and innocent misrepresentation.” National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d at 91. The Court explained that the rule prevented plaintiffs from turning a contractual claim into a tort claim. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 21. The Court further noted that contractual privity is required for a claim of economic loss, and an economic loss claim is not limited to strict liability claims. Id. Because the plaintiff’s claim was solely for an economic loss, it was a contractual claim in nature; therefore, the Court concluded that “the implied warranty of habitability cannot be characterized as a tort.” Id. at ¶ 22. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Cronin, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Cronin may be contacted at tcronin@grsm.com

Partner Denis Moriarty and Of Counsel William Baumgaertner Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2017

September 08, 2016 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Partner Denis Moriarty and Of Counsel William Baumgaertner were selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2017. This marks the fifth consecutive year Mr. Moriarty has been listed for his work in insurance law, and this marks the eleventh year Mr. Baumgaertner has been listed for his defendants’ and plaintiffs’ work in personal injury and product liability litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Trade Contract Revisions to Address COVID-19

August 23, 2021 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Many trade contracts contain a clause that may protect trade contractors from catastrophic events like pandemics. These clauses are known as force-majeure clauses (covering acts of God). They basically say if these unavoidable events happen, the contractor is relieved of its obligations to the extent of the impact. However, many common industry forms have not been updated to specifically address COVID-19. (They may be waiting to see how the courts treat their existing language first.) So to ensure impacts from COVID-19 are covered, a trade contractor should consider expressly adding it to the force-majeure clause. See the example below. Notably, typical force-majeure clauses do not say the trade contractor gets more money. So an escalation clause could be added to the force-majeure clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
While modern concrete often crumbles after fifty years, some concrete laid down during the Roman Empire is still strong, even after 2,000 years. Researchers at UC Berkeley have been puzzling over the secrets of Roman concrete, using samples from a breakwater near Naples. The breakwater was built about 37 BC, and the concrete is still strong. Unlike modern concrete, the Romans made theirs with a mixture of lime and volcanic ash. Paulo Monteiro, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, noted that one of the drawbacks of Roman cement was that it hardens more slowly than modern concrete. An advantage is that it is more environmentally friendly, and the researchers are trying to determine if volcanic ash cement would be a good substitute. Professor Montiero hopes that fly ash and volcanic ash cements “could replace 40 percent of the world’s demand for Portland cement.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Picketing Threats

July 09, 2019 — Jerry Morales - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction
Letters from unions to owners, general contractors and other contractors informing them of the union’s dispute with one or more of the subcontractors, working at a common construction project site (or common situs), and of the union’s plans to engage in “public informational campaigns” at the site, in furtherance of the dispute, may constitute unlawful threats of secondary boycott. Unions often send letters to various employers that share a common construction project site, informing them that the union has a dispute with one or more of the subcontractors working or scheduled to work at the same site. In labor law, the employers that do not have a dispute with the union are referred to as “neutral employers,” in contrast with the employers with which the union has the dispute, referred to as “primary employers.” In the letters, the unions typically describe the reason for the labor dispute (e.g., alleged failure to pay “area standards”), request that the neutrals use their “managerial discretion” not to allow the primary employers to perform work at the project site until the dispute is resolved, and inform that the union will engage in public information campaigns against the primary employer at the common situs. The “public information campaign” is described in the union’s letter as including banner displays, distribution of handbills, picketing and other demonstration activity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jerry Morales, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Morales may be contacted at jmorales@swlaw.com

"Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

May 20, 2019 — Jeremiah M. Welch - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The recent white paper on Repair Work Endorsements by Jeremiah Welch, drew a storm of responses. Most were appreciative and included follow up questions, but there were those that lamented along the lines of: “How can that be? We’ve been doing it this way for years…”. For the skeptics, the best approach to test the premise of the paper (that most “repair work endorsements” are at best redundant with the PCO extension and at worst restrictive) is to try to formulate a scenario where coverage would be available under a “repair work endorsement” but not under a PCO extension. Several folks asked about the impact of PCO extensions and repair work endorsements on “punch list” work. “Punch list” work presents a related but different problem. The first issue is understanding what is meant by the term “punch list”. You won’t find that term in an ISO CGL policy. You may find it defined in a construction contract and a Google search will yield several similar definitions. In general, our industry uses the term “punch list” to describe items identified toward the end of a project (often after the contractually defined point of “substantial completion”) which must be completed in order to fully comply with the contract requirements/scope. In short, “punch list” items are items necessary to complete the work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Welch may be contacted at jmw@sdvlaw.com

Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

October 12, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Aside from waiver of lien rights (something that will be illegal in Virginia after July 1, 2015), the most troublesome contractual impediment to payment for a subcontractor or supplier on a project often is the “pay if paid” clause. As a general rule, in Virginia, these clauses where drafted in the proper fashion, are enforceable. As I have said many times, in Virginia freedom of contract almost always wins out. While this is the case, I emphasize that such clauses must be very explicit and specific. Furthermore, and in something that should be obvious, these clauses are generally limited by the Courts of Virginia to only be enforceable and to only forgive the need for payment if the upstream contractor on the construction job has not been paid for the work that the sub claiming non payment has done. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

March 22, 2017 — Maggie Stewart - Colorado Construction Litigation
On March 9, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced its decision in Broomfield Senior Living Owner, LLC v. R.G. Brinkmann Company, No. 16CA0101, 2017 COA 31 (Colo. App. Mar. 9, 2017). As a matter of first impression, the Court evaluated whether a senior living facility constitutes “residential property” protected by the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 ("HPA") provision of the Construction Defect Reform Act (CDARA). In 2007, Plaintiff Broomfield entered into a contract with Defendant Brinkmann for construction of a senior assisted and independent living facility. The contract contained warranty provisions related to the quality of construction and cautioned that Plaintiff’s failure to provide Defendant with prompt notice of any defects would result in waiver of any claim for breach. The contract also limited Defendant Brinkmann’s liability by identifying three separate accrual provisions that would determine the time period in which Plaintiff could bring a claim. The project was completed in 2009. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Stewart, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Stewart may be contacted at stewart@hhmrlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES