Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

February 01, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents. In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. 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

Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

August 10, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Colorado Supreme Court determined that the insurer defending under a reservation of rights could not intervene in the underlying case after the insured assigned its rights to any bad faith claim against the insurer. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2021 Colo. LEXIS 365 (Colo. May 24, 2021). Bolt Factory initiated a construction defects lawsuit against various contractors. Several defendants filed third-party complaints against subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Company. Auto-Owners agreed to defend its insured, Sierra Glass, under a reservation of rights. Auto-Owners declined to settle with Bolt Factory for $1.9 million, within policy limits. Sierra Glass then retains independent counsel and entered into a settlement with Bolt Factory. The settlement allowed Sierra Glass to assign its bad faith claims to Bolt Factory in exchange for the right to pursue the insurer for payment of the excess judgment rather than Sierra Glass. Instead of entering into a stipulated judgment, Bolt Factory and Sierra Glass proceeded to an abbreviated trial. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Google’s Floating Mystery Boxes Solved?

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai, on his California Construction Law blog, reported how “a four story structure made up of shipping containers” had been mysteriously erected on a barge in the middle of San Francisco Bay. Later, it was determined that Google was behind the strange structure, though they were keeping silent as to what the building-on-the-barge would be used for. Construction stopped after the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission determined that the mysterious barge required a permit—which would require Google to file “publicly available documents.” Google chose to move the barge to Stockton, California rather than obtain a permit. Google finally released a comment stating that they are “exploring using the barge as an interactive space where people can learn about new technology.” However, Murai believes that this statement may be a “distraction device” and the true use of the barge has yet to be revealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

February 06, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 3, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice advising the regulated community that EPA’s controversial Clean Air Act (CAA) stationary source Risk Management Program (RMP) rules are effective as of December 3, 2018 – the Final Rule: Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act (83 FR 62268). The initial package of the RMP rules was promulgated in 1996, but a series of chemical explosions prompted the development of new rules, whose process safety, third party auditing, emergency response, preparedness and information sharing provisions were designed to confront these challenges. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Construction Contracts Need Amending Post COVID-19 Shutdowns

October 19, 2020 — Richard P. Higgins - Construction Executive
No one could have expected the coronavirus pandemic in the beginning of 2020. True, there were rumblings about a sickness in China that was highly contagious and infecting many people. Death tolls began rising as the world watched in disbelieve. After all, this is 2020. This is not supposed to happen. We should have been able to control the spread of the virus, but we could not. COVID-19 quickly spread throughout the world causing havoc and economic despair. While some sectors of the construction industry are not as impacted as others, contractors industry-wide need to consider how COVID-19 will impact their contractual obligations. Depending on what happens and what the government decides to do to stop the spread of the coronavirus, project delays, supply chain distributions, lost productivity and work stoppages may continue for months. All of this will impact the contracts that contractors have with owners. Contractors may not be able to preform according to the terms of the contract through no fault of their own. Owners may no longer qualify for the financing needed to pay for the project. FORCE MAJEURE According to Investopedia, “force majeure refers to a clause that is included in contracts to remove liability for natural and unavoidable catastrophes that interrupt the expected course of events and prevent participants from fulfilling obligations.” Reprinted courtesy of Richard P. Higgins, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Higgins may be contacted at Richard.Higgins@MCC-CPAs.com

OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued $400,000 in fines to two contactors who were involved with the collapse of a building in Philadelphia. Six people died and 14 more were injured in an adjacent building. OSHA concluded that the two firms, Campbell Construction and S&R Contracting, violated workplace safety regulations 12 times in their demolition of the building. According to OSHA, Campbell Construction removed structural supports and portions of the lower floors of the building while upper stories were still being demolished. Both firms failed to provide its workers with fall protection equipment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

September 14, 2017 — Gary Barrera - California Construction Law Blog
In a victory for additional insureds, a California appeals court held, in Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D070478 (filed 8/30/17), that an insurer’s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase “ongoing operations” in an additional insured endorsement, was improper. Additionally, an insurer wishing to limit coverage under an additional insured endorsement to ongoing operations must do so via clear and explicit language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gary Barrera, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Barrera may be contacted at gbarrera@wendel.com

Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Medical Arts Hospital in Lamesa, Texas has settled a lawsuit against its general contractor, roofing contractor, and two insurance companies for $3.7 million, over alleged construction problems. Ray Stephens, president of the hospital’s board said, “we got enough to fix the major problems and that was our goal in the beginning.” With the settlement, the lawsuit has been dismissed by the court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES