Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

April 15, 2024 — Mason Fletcher - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The University of Washington (UW), a public university, aimed to secure a real estate developer for a new building on its campus. The proposal involved an 80-year ground lease (the “Lease”), and developers submitted bids. The selected developer would demolish an existing building, construct a new one, own it during the Lease at its own cost, and UW would lease back a portion, with ownership reverting to UW at the Lease’s end. Alexandria Real Equities, Inc. (ARE) was a finalist but ultimately was not selected, and the Lease was awarded to Wexford Science and Technology, LLC (Wexford). As a result, ARE filed suit against UW asserting three claims: 1) UW lacked authority to execute the Lease, 2) UW didn’t follow required competitive bidding procedures, and 3) UW’s developer selection process was arbitrary and capricious. None of these claims were successful and ARE appealed. Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. v. Univ. of Wash., __ Wn. App. __, 539 P.3d 54 (2023), a published decision. The Court concluded, based on the facts in that case, that because construction was not publicly funded, UW did not have to follow competitive bidding requirements that were laid out in a statute relevant to state universities. Still, the Court applied the “bright-line cutoff point” that prohibits disappointed bidders from challenging an award once a contract has been executed. See Dick Enterprises, Inc. v. Metro. King County, 83 Wn. App. 566, 572, 922 P.2d 184 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com

Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

April 03, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
The federal district court predicted that the Utah Supreme Court would find that damage to property other than the insured's work product is unexpected and arises from an occurrence. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. AMSCO Windows, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15999 (D. Utah Feb. 5, 2013). The insured, AMSCO Windows, installed windows in new homes constructed in Nevada. A number of homeowners asserted claims against the contractors who built their homes, alleging numerous construction defects, including the windows, and that the defects caused property damage to their homes. The contractors, in turn, asserted claims against AMSCO. The insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, filed for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify AMSCO. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

CGL Policies and the Professional Liabilities Exclusion

August 14, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Commercial general liability (CGL) policies for contractors traditionally contain a professional liabilities exclusion. This exclusion is generally added through a specific endorsement to eliminate coverage for professional services. Read the endorsement The point of the exclusion, in a nutshell, is simply to eliminate a CGL policy for a contractor serving as a professional liability policy. Contractors need to appreciate a professional liabilities exclusion added through endorsement because oftentimes there are delegated design components they are responsible for. Perhaps the contractor value engineered a system and is responsible for engineering and signing and sealing the engineered documents (through its subcontractor) associated with that system. Perhaps there is a performance specification that requires the contractor to engineer a system. Perhaps there is a design-build component. Regardless of the circumstance, this professional liabilities exclusion can certainly come into play, particularly if a defect is raised with the design or professional services associated with the engineered system. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

May 17, 2021 — Copernicus T. Gaza, Adam Krauss, Robert S. Nobel, Craig Rokuson & Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
The New York State Assembly is considering A07285, which creates a private right of action for bad faith “if the insurer unreasonably refuses to pay or unreasonably delays payment without substantial justification.” The bill was first introduced in 2013 but was reintroduced on May 3, 2021 and has received some recent attention. According to the bill, an insurer acts unreasonably when it (among other things):

Fails to provide the claimant with accurate information regarding policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue; or
Fails to effectuate in good faith a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim or portion of a claim and where the insurer failed to reasonably accord at least equal or more favorable consideration to its insured's interests as it did to its own interests, and thereby exposed the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits or caused other damage to a claimant; or
Fails to provide a timely written denial of a claimant's claim, or portion thereof, with a full and complete explanation of such denial, including references to specific policy provisions wherever possible; or

Reprinted courtesy of Copernicus T. Gaza, Traub Lieberman, Adam Krauss, Traub Lieberman, Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman, Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman Mr. Gaza may be contacted at cgaza@tlsslaw.com Mr. Krauss may be contacted at akrauss@tlsslaw.com Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Mr Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
An issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation. Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions. Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous

March 22, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The Florida District Court reversed erroneous jury instructions that adopted the efficient proximate cause doctrine in determining whether the insurer was responsible for the insureds’ collapsed roof. Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 561 (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

The insureds filed a claim for their damaged roof, contending that the damage was caused by a hailstorm. Federal National Insurance Company denied the claim based upon exclusions for “wear and tear, marring, deterioration;” “faulty, inadequate or defective design;” “neglect;” “existing damage;” or “weather conditions.”

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

Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

February 12, 2024 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
In a recent Board decision dated December 13, 2023, the United States Army Corps of Engineers sought to amend its answer in the case of APPEALS OF – KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., under Contract No. W912GB-13-C-0011. The proposed amendment introduces an affirmative defense, contending that Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) made material misrepresentations in its proposal, rendering the fully-performed contract void ab initio. Background: The contract in question, executed on July 9, 2013, was for the construction of an Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System site in Deveselu, Romania, with a firm, fixed-price amount of $134,211,592. The Corps moved to amend its answer to allege that KBR’s material misrepresentations induced the Corps to enter the contract, justifying the voiding of the contract. The alleged misrepresentations include issues related to subcontractor quotes, firm fixed prices, subcontracting plans, and more. Motion to Amend and Legal Defense: The Corps, despite delays in formally amending its answer, argued that KBR was aware of the potential affirmative defense before the conclusion of fact discovery. The proposed affirmative defense asserts that KBR made eight material misrepresentations in its proposal, upon which the Corps relied in awarding the contract and defending against a GAO protest. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

June 10, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
A Texas Court of Appeals, in USA Walnut Creek, DST v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., recently ruled that an engineer owed a duty to the buyer of an apartment complex, even though the engineer had no contractual relationship with the buyer. This is an expansion of the duty professionals owe on construction projects and could signal a change in the law. In the case, Walnut Creek purchased a three year old apartment complex. A few years after taking possession, Walnut Creek noticed problems with the apartments, including cracking foundations, walls, breaking windows, and out of square door frames. Walnut Creek sued the developer and general contractor, alleging construction defects. The developer claimed that the engineer, Terracon, was at fault and Walnut Creek added Terracon to the lawsuit, asserting that Terracon was negligent in performing engineering services during construction. Terracon asked the court to dismiss the claim, arguing that it did not owe a duty to Walnut Creek. Walnut Creek in turn argued that engineers do owe a duty to subsequent owners. The trial court dismissed the case against the engineer and Walnut Creek appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court, finding that the engineer did owe a duty to subsequent purchasers. The court seemed persuaded by the allegations that the engineer actually created the construction defects which were the basis for the litigation. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES