FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

June 10, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Several bills were passed and will go into effect on July 1, 2015 that affect the construction industry here in Virginia. The most interesting of these was an amendment to the mechanic’s lien statutes relating to waivers of lien rights. As I posted in March, SB891 amended the mechanic’s lien statute, Va. Code Section 43-3, to remove proactive waivers of lien and bond rights. This bill has been signed into law with a minor modification. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

May 27, 2019 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
A Toronto area contractor at the center of a series of delays to major projects in Ontario, including a $139-million hospital expansion, has won court protection from its creditors. The Ontario Superior Court earlier this month granted Bondfield Construction Co.’s application for protection, court records show. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR

---

Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

February 27, 2019 — Stephen M. Tye & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Orange County Water District v. The Arnold Engineering Company (D070763), the Fourth Appellate District examined the criteria for evaluating the reasonableness of a parties’ denial of requests for admission (RFA’s) based upon their expert’s opinions and the proof required to recover costs for unreasonable denials. In Orange County Water District, the Orange County Water District (the District) sued several current and former owners and operators of industrial sites, including The Arnold Engineering Company (Arnold), to recover expenses associated with groundwater cleanup efforts intended to address groundwater contamination caused by volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) and other chemicals. Over six years, the parties conducted extensive discovery, including document productions, depositions, and soil sampling and monitoring. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?

April 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Colorado, regulators are questioning the true value of rooftop solar panels, reported the Denver Business Journal: “Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc. (NYSE: XEL), the biggest utility in Colorado, has said it believes Colorado’s current ‘net metering’ policy means the utility is overpaying customers who have rooftop solar power systems.” Currently, “Xcel...credits customers at a rate of 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour of excess power produced.” However, the utility company believes that “the ‘true value’ of the rooftop solar electricity is about half what it’s paying—just 4.6 cents per kilowatt hour.” According to the Denver Business Journal, supporters argue that “Xcel has undervalued the electricity and hasn’t accounted for the systems’ environmental and economic attributes.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential Damages

February 27, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews Kurth
In a huge win for policyholders, a New York appellate court, in D.K. Property, Inc. v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., held that an insured need not provide a detailed factual description or explanation for why consequential damages are recoverable at the pleading stage. Rather, an insured’s complaint must only (i) specify the types of consequential damages claimed; and (ii) allege that those damages reasonably were contemplated by the parties prior to contracting. Here, D.K. Property’s building was damaged as a result of construction on an adjoining building, and it timely filed a claim with National Union under a policy that covers “direct physical loss or damage to” the building. National Union neither paid the claim nor disclaimed coverage. Instead, according to D.K. Property, National Union made unreasonable and increasingly burdensome information demands over a three-year period, which it alleges was a “tactic” to make pursuing the claim so expensive that D.K. Property would abandon the claim. As a result of the delay, D.K. Property alleges the structural damage to its building has worsened. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

June 08, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are cases where you feel for the plaintiff, but understand why they did not prevail, despite the creative efforts of their counsel. The case of Robinson v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 958 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2020) is one of these cases. In Robinson, the plaintiff moved into a home that turned out to be infested with a highly venomous spider. Efforts to eradicate the spider proved unsuccessful and the spider apparently infested the entire home. The plaintiff made a claim under their homeowner’s property insurance policy arguing that their home suffered a physical loss caused by the spider infestation as the spider presented an irreparable condition that rendered the home unsafe for occupancy. (It probably did!). The property insurer denied coverage because the policy had an insurance exclusion for loss caused by birds, vermin, rodents, or insects. The insurer claimed the spider is an insect or vermin and, therefore, there is no coverage based on the exclusion. The insured creatively argued that “scientifically speaking” a spider is an arachnid and not an insect. Neither the trial court nor the Eleventh Circuit found this argument persuasive. 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

---

Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

March 22, 2018 — Michael Sams and Amanda Cox – Construction Executive, A publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All Rights Reserved.
Here’s a helpful comparison of and analysis of some important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions). While not intended to be all inclusive, this summary comparison of the contract documents will run as a three-part series. Part I covers Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part II will cover Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

• What assurances are there that the owner can pay for the project?

• The Contractor should have the right to request and obtain proof that the Owner has funding sufficient to pay for the Work. The provision should also provide that the Contractor may terminate the Contract if the Owner refuses to allow a review of funding documents, or should the Contractor reasonably determine that the Owner does not have sufficient funds to pay for the Work.

Relevant Sections:

• A201 2007 Section 2.2.1; 2017 Section 2.2.1-2.2.2 A201

• 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs 200: Section 4.2

AIA:

• Section 2.2.1 A201 2007 & 2017: Both editions require the Owner, upon Contractor’s written request, to provide, “reasonable evidence that the Owner has made financial arrangements to fulfill the Owner’s obligations under the Contract.” Thereafter, the Contractor may only request such evidence if (1) the Owner fails to make payments; (2) a change in the Work materially changes the Contract Sum; or (3) the Contractor identifies in writing a reasonable concern regarding the Owner’s ability to make payment when due. If the Owner does not comply, the Contractor may stop work.

• Additionally, A201 2017 Section 2.2.2 awards costs to the Contractor for demobilization and remobilization.

Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Mr. Sams may be contacted at mpsams@KandSlegal.com Ms. Cox may be contacted at ajcox@KandSlegal.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Following My Own Advice

October 21, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
I often advise clients on the use of E-Verify and the importance of getting policies and in place to ensure compliance. This is particularly true for clients that do federal and state work. Now it’s my turn to follow my own advice. I was recently appointed to represent the Nebraska Board of Engineers and Architects. As such, I am a contractor for the State of Nebraska. That means I have to use E-Verify. Here is a refresher of “our” E-Verify obligations as a contractor for the State. Nebraska adopted an E-Verify law in 2009. Nebraska statute section 4-114 requires all contractors that are awarded a contract by a state agency or political subdivision to register with ta federal immigration verification system. Although not explicit in the statute, the Department of Labor has indicated that the obligation to E-Verify applies only to new employees that will be working on the project. 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

---