Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Construction defect claims can be an avoidable headache, if builders apply some forethought. Mark J. Peschel of Johnson & Lindberg, a Bloomington, Minnesota law firm, points out that simply says that windows should be weatherproofed by appropriate flashing, without any guidance on accomplishing that. He notes that “builders tend not to know the weatherproofing code provisions as well as they should.” Another lawyer, Eric S. Hayes of Brown and Carlson in St. Louis Park extends this, “it’s not just the building codes that need to be followed, but also the standards in the industry.” Hayes notes that another way builders can avoid headaches is by being proactive. “I often hear, once things have gone sour and moved toward litigation, that the homeowner contacted the contractor a dozen times about a leaking basement and nothing was done, so they were forced to sue.” His advice for builders: “Don’t let it fester.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

June 15, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Houston law firm of Eggleston & Briscoe successfully defended their client, Colony Insurance Company, which was being sued for $22 million over roof hail damage. The Summer Hill Village Community Association did not convince a jury that the insurance company had violated state law or breached its contract when it denied coverage for the roofs. The homeowners association contended that the roof damage was due to a hail storm in 2007. The jury agreed with experts who contended the damage was already present at that time.

Mr. Eggleston noted that “when your client is sued for a claim of $22 million, it is very satisfying to hear a jury agree that they in fact acted honorably and owed nothing.”

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)

March 22, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
All participants across the construction industry should understand what efforts they should take to maximize and collateralize payment. No one wants to work for free and, certainly, no one in the construction industry wants to work without ensuring there is some mechanism to recover payment in the event they remain unpaid. Being proactive and knowledgeable can go a long way when it comes to recovering your money. Your Contract – It starts with the contract. You should understand those risks that are allocated to you and those that are allocated to another party. And, you should understand the contractual mechanism to resolve claims and disputes and whether your contract has a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision. In addition to contractual rights, there are tools for you to maximize your collection efforts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

February 10, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register. Background As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency. In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective. 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

Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

November 23, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Teaming agreements are practical and useful agreements on public projects where a prime contractor teams with a subcontractor for purposes of submitting a bid or proposal in response to a solicitation. The prime contractor and subcontractor work together to pursue that solicitation and have the government award the contract to the prime contractor. The teaming agreement allows for information to be confidentially shared (estimating and pricing, construction methodologies, systems, and suggestions, value engineering, etc.) where the subcontractor agrees that it will only pursue the solicitation with the prime contractor. In other words, the subcontractor ideally is not going to submit pricing to another prime contractor proposing or bidding on the same project and is not going to share information the prime contractor has furnished to it. Likewise, the prime contractor is not going to use the subcontractor’s information for purposes of finding another subcontractor at a lower price and is agreeing to use its good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract with the subcontractor if it is awarded the project. This is all memorialized in the teaming agreement. The potential problem lies with language that requires the parties to use their good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract if the project is awarded to the prime contractor. In essence, this can become a disfavored “agreement to agree” to a future contract that could allow either party to create an argument to back out of the deal under the auspice that they could not come to terms with the subcontract. 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 New York Lien Law - Top Ten Things You Ought to Know

December 23, 2023 — Ralph E. Arpajian - White and Williams LLP
Over the course of my career, I have had the privilege of working with and representing numerous construction lenders (and borrowers/developers) in the financing of some of the largest commercial projects in the United States. A number of these projects have been in New York, where one encounters the New York Lien Law (the “Lien Law”). Many of my clients, particularly those lenders, borrowers, and their counsel, located outside of New York, are often perplexed by my advice regarding the Lien Law and the loan structuring requirements which result. In the hope that it would be helpful (especially for non-New York counsel), I have compiled a “top ten” list outlining, in my view, the most critical (and most perplexing) aspects of structuring New York construction loans under the Lien Law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ralph E. Arpajian, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Arpajian may be contacted at arpajianr@whiteandwilliams.com

Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms Senior Living Communities as “Residential Properties” for Purposes of the Homeowner Protection Act

November 06, 2023 — Hal Baker - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
The Third Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently interpreted the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 (the “HPA”) in Heights Healthcare v. BCER, 2023 COA 44, decided on May 25, 2023. The Court held that a senior living community that is located on a parcel zoned “commercial” or “mixed use” constitutes “residential property” that is protected by the HPA, regardless of the zoning designation. The claims in Heights Healthcare arose from a contract between BCER and Heights Healthcare for BCER to provide mechanical and electrical services relating to the installation of Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner units at the senior living community. The contract between the parties included a limitation of liability clause, limiting BCER’s liability to a total of $22,500 for the total cost of services rendered. After the installation, Heights Healthcare discovered that the air conditioner units were malfunctioning, causing too few of the eighty-four units to run and tripping the breaker—shutting down the entire system—when the outdoor temperature dropped too low. Following the discovery of the malfunction, Heights Healthcare filed suit against BCER for breach of contract under the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hal Baker, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Baker may be contacted at baker@hhmrlaw.com

Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

November 18, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Application of the facts to the "your work" exclusion was the key to resolving coverage issued in Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech L.L.C., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21076 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011).

Ergon Refining, Inc. hired Cat Tech L.L.C. to service a hydrotreating reactor. In January 2005, Cat Tech replaced certain parts in the reactor. After Cat Tech finished the job and left, Ergon noticed a high pressure drop in the reactor, forcing it to be shut down. Cat Tech returned in February 2005, removed, repaired and replaced the damaged parts, and loaded new parts. After completion, a second large pressure drop occurred during the reactor’s start-up process. The reactor was shut down until October 2005, when Ergon hired a different contractor to perform the repair work. Additional damage to the reactor was found.