Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

September 17, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have spoken often about mechanic’s liens and the implications of such liens as they relate to bankruptcy here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Loudoun County, Virginia added another wrinkle to this discussion, that of standing and what happens on conveyance of the property and what interest in the property is required to allow a party to seek removal of the mechanic’s lien. In Leesburg Bldg. P’rs LLC v. Mike Berger Inc. the Loudoun County Circuit Court faced the following scenario. Leesburg Building Partners developed certain condominiums and hired Lansdowne Construction to perform the work as general contractor and paid Landsdowne in full for the work. Lansdowne hired Mike Berger, Inc. (“MBI”) to perform concrete work for the project. Landsdowne didn’t pay MBI approximately $48,000.00 and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. MBI, seeking to protect it’s interest in the money it was owed, recorded a mechanic’s lien on the property. Leesburg Building Partners filed an action to declare the lien invalid and have it removed from the property based upon its “payment defense” and the fact that it had paid Landsdowne in full. A relatively simple scenario and one that has been discussed before here at Musings. Not so fast. . . Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Flood Policy Does Not Cover Debris Removal from Property

May 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Third Circuit affirmed the granting summary judgment to the insurer over a dispute as to debris removal under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP). Torre v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4902 (3rd Cir. March 26, 2015). The Torres' property sustained substantial damage from Hurricane Sandy. Claims for flood damage were submitted to Liberty. Liberty paid a total of $235,751.68, which included the cost of removing debris from the house. An additional $15,520 for the cost of removing sand and other debris deposited on their land in front of and behind the Torres' home was denied on the grounds that the SFIP did not cover such removal. The Torres filed suit and cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The district court denied the Torres' motion and granted Liberty's motion. 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

Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

February 04, 2013 — Tred R. Eyerly
Although the insurer failed to understand the pertinent law that mandated coverage under the policy, its actions did not rise to an unfair claim settlement practice justifying multiple damages. Gelwan v. Vermont Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. app. LEXIS 210 (2nd Cir. Jan. 4, 2013). In 1999, a contractor re-roofed the insureds' home. The job was poorly done, and an imperfect seal was created. Over several years, various structures within the house were damaged by water, which caused the rotting of structural beams and joists. The insureds sued for coverage under their homeowners policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
te@hawaiilawyer.com

New Case Alert: California Federal Court Allows Policy Stacking to Cover Continuous Injury

November 23, 2016 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
“Stacking” is a practice that is very favorable for policyholders, especially in environmental coverage cases involving extended pollution events. It allows a policyholder to combine the limits of multiple consecutive policies to cover continuous injury claims occurring over multiple policy periods. Without stacking, insurers can limit a policyholder’s recovery to a single policy limit. The Eastern District of California recently decided that a policyholder could stack the limits of six consecutive policies, where the occurrence was a continuous injury spanning all six policy years. Among other rulings, the court determined that the plain language of the policy under dispute did not prevent stacking. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

May 17, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to proving a construction cost, particularly a cost in dispute, the cost must be REASONABLE. Costs subject to claims must be reasonably incurred and the party incurring the costs must show the costs are reasonable. An example of the burden falling on the contractor to prove the reasonableness of costs is found in government contracting. “[T]here is no presumption that a [government] contractor is entitled to reimbursement ‘simply because it incurred…costs.’” Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. Secretary of Army, 973 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Stated differently, a federal contractor is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness just because it incurs costs. Id. In government contracting, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (known as “FAR”) puts the burden of reasonableness on the contractor that incurred the costs. Id. 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

The Unpost, Post: Dynamex and the Construction Indianapolis

July 10, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s been three months since the California Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, Case No. S222732 (April 30, 2018) and I’ve had a couple of readers (perhaps my only two) ask whether I was going to write about the decision. I’m not. Well, obviously, that’s not quite true if you’re reading this. Rather, I’ll tell you why I’m writing about not writing about the decision. Dynamex is certainly an important decision and one that will likely be cited for decades to come. In short, Dynamex changed the nearly 30-year old test, first elucidated in S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, for determining whether a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor or an employee. 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

Washington Court Denies Subcontractor’s Claim Based on Contractual Change and Notice Provisions

January 29, 2024 — Wendy Rosenstein - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The recent unpublished case, Cascade Civil Construction, LLC v. Jackson Dean Construction, Inc., et al.,[1] provides a legal justification for contractors to require a directive or change order in advance of performing changed work—thereby preventing the party who requested the changed work from later arguing that notice provisions were not complied with. In the case, Jackson Dean, the prime contractor, hired Cascade to perform excavation work on a project to build a new Costco Corporate headquarters. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and other issues, Jackson Dean directed resequencing, which required Cascade to perform excavation concurrent to dewatering. Jackson Dean also required deeper-than-planned excavation under one of the buildings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wendy Rosenstein, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Rosenstein may be contacted at wendy.rosenstein@acslawyers.com

Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?

September 28, 2020 — Molly Gwin - Construction Executive
With the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous cities and states have mandated infection control practices, including social distancing, mask requirements and sanitization of work areas and tools. As a result, many construction leaders now have questions as to how government guidance related to COVID-19 interacts with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, can a project manager enforce a mask mandate when a construction worker presents a doctor’s excuse noting breathing difficulties? Or, what if the employer is aware that an individual presents a higher risk for severe illness because of an underlying health condition, but that employee does not request an accommodation? Thankfully, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published guidance relating to these requests that construction leaders can reference. While our goal is to summarize that guidance and provide practical advice for the construction sector, this article does not substitute for situation specific legal counsel. SCENARIO 1: AN EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO WEAR A MASK AND PRODUCES A DOCTOR’S NOTE CITING BREATHING DIFFICULTIES. MUST THE EMPLOYER ACCOMMODATE SUCH A REQUEST? Potentially. Since the request to not wear a mask is considered an accommodation under the ADA, the employer can still require a doctor’s note when considering the accommodation. Reprinted courtesy of Molly Gwin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Gwin may be contacted at mgwin@isaacwiles.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES