Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Short on Labor, Israeli Builders Seek to Vaccinate Palestinians

February 01, 2021 — Ivan Levingston & Fadwa Hodali - Bloomberg
Israeli builders want the government to vaccinate Palestinian construction workers to help rally a battered housing industry. While Israel is racing to inoculate its citizens, the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority has no vaccination program in place. Beyond being a critical health issue, the gap is also an economic problem because the Israeli construction sector relies heavily on Palestinian workers who’ve been cut off repeatedly from building sites due to lockdowns. Before the pandemic, about 65,000 Palestinians worked for Israeli contractors inside Israel, accounting for a third of their workforce. Closures and restrictions on both sides led to a 30% drop in housing starts despite rising demand. Reprinted courtesy of Ivan Levingston, Bloomberg and Fadwa Hodali, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Minimum Wage on Federal Construction Projects is $10.10

November 26, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Department of Labor issued its final regulations to implement President Obama’s Executive Order raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour for workers on federal construction projects. The new minimum wage will not be effective until January 1, 2015, and will apply to most workers and most federal projects. Covered Contracts Executive Order 13658 applies to four major categories of contractual agreements:

procurement contracts for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) that exceed $2,000;
service contracts covered by the Service Contract Act (SCA) that exceed $2,500;
concessions contracts, including any concessions contract excluded from the SCA by the Department of Labor’s regulations at 29 CFR 4.133(b); and
contracts in connection with Federal property or lands and related to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public.

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

New York State Legislature Reintroduces Bills to Extend Mortgage Recording Tax to Mezzanine Debt and Preferred Equity

March 15, 2021 — Steven E. Coury & Marissa Levy - White and Williams
Companion bills in the New York State Legislature, Assembly Bill No. A3139 and Senate Bill No. S3074, if enacted, would subject mezzanine loans and preferred equity investments to the same recording and taxation requirements placed on mortgages. The bills were reintroduced last month after similar bills (S7231/A9041) were introduced in the 2019-2020 legislative session. The prior bills died in committee when last year’s legislative session adjourned. As discussed in our prior alert, the proposed bills would require: (1) a financing statement evidencing any mezzanine debt and/or preferred equity investments related to real property to be filed in the county in which the real property is located and (2) a recording tax, at the same rate as the applicable mortgage recording tax rate (2.80% for commercial mortgages over $500,000 in New York City), to be imposed on the amount of the debt and/or investment at the time the financing statement is filed. The bills contain a limited carve-out for owner-occupied residential cooperatives. Reprinted courtesy of Steven E. Coury, White and Williams and Marissa Levy, White and Williams Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Levy may be contacted at levmp@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

E-Commerce Logistics Test Limits of Tilt-Up Construction

January 28, 2019 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
While “fulfillment centers” and other e-commerce logistic facilities drive a hot market for the manufacturing sector, traditional construction methods such as tilt-up concrete panels are being pushed to ever-greater heights. At a recent project in Tulsa, Okla., contractor Clayco oversaw installation of tilt-up composite panels that reached 81 ft in height, using an unusual brace and a lot of careful pre-planning. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

February 25, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventh Circuit determined that the trial court did not err by refusing to give preclusive effect to findings made in the underlying state-court action because there was no collateral estoppel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sharif, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2114 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2014). Bashir's owned a grocery and was insured by Nationwide. The decedent was accidentally killed by a pistol stored under the cash register. The decedent's personal representative sued Bashir in state court. Nationwide declined to defend because it maintained that the employment exclusion applied to bar coverage. The personal representative argued two alternative claims, the first assuming the decedent was not an employee of Bashir's and the second assuming that he was. The state court granted a motion to dismiss the second claim that the decedent was an employee. In a subsequent trial, judgment was awarded against Bashir and another defendant in the amount of $950,000. 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

Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions

December 19, 2018 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently held that any successful plaintiff in a forcible detainer action (i.e., an eviction action) may recover an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred at trial under A.R.S. § 12-1178(A). See Bank of New York v. Dodev, 1 CA-CV 17-0652 (Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2018). Prior to this decision, caselaw held that fees were only awardable in actions arising out of the termination of a residential lease. RREEF Mgmt. Co. v. Camex Prods., Inc., 190 Ariz. 75, 945 P.2d 386 (Ct. App. 1997). Changes to the statute, however, rendered the prior caselaw obsolete. Although the holding in Dodev is important, the facts of the case are truly astonishing…and somewhat depressing. The Facts In Dodev, Ivaylo Dodev (Dodev) defaulted on his home loan in 2008. He nevertheless “succeeded in remaining on the [p]roperty by filing numerous legal actions that delayed the foreclosure and subsequent trustee’s sale” at least through the date of the opinion—a ten (10) year period. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court. The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.” The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties. Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment. The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.” The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors. The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.” The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

November 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
On rehearing, the Fifth Circuit determined that the contractual-liability exclusion did not apply to bar coverage for damage caused by the insured contractor to the home it constructed. Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20727 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2014).The court withdrew its prior opinion, summarized here. Arrow Development, Inc. contracted with the Crownovers to construct a home. The contract had a warranty-to-repair clause, which, in paragraph 23.1, provided that Arrow would "promptly correct work . . . failing to confirm to the requirements of the Contract Documents." After the Crownovers moved in, cracks began to appear in the walls and foundation of the home. Additional problems with the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ("HVAC") caused leaking in the exterior lines and air ducts inside the home. To compensate for defects in the HVAC system, the system's mechanical units ran almost continuously in order to heat or cool the home. Because they were overburdened, the mechanical units had to be replaced. The Crownovers paid several hundred thousand dollars to fix the problems with the foundation and HVAC system. 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