Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

California Contractor Tests the Bounds of Job Order Contracting

March 01, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Most contractors have heard of design-bid-build, design-build, construction manager at risk, and even public private partnerships, various project delivery methods, which, at their heart, focus on balancing the interests of the various parties involved in a construction project, from owners, to design professionals, to contractors. There’s one project delivery method you may not be as familiar with though: Job Order Contracting, also known by its acronym JOC. JOC contracting is a project delivery method used on public works projects and has been authorized to be used by California K-12 school districts, community colleges, CalState universities, and the Judicial Council of California, which, among other things, is responsible for the construction of California state courts. It is intended to be used on smaller, independent, long-horizon project typically involving maintenance, repair and refurbishment. Think periodic maintenance of facilities. JOC contracts are administered by public entities issuing a request for proposals. The public entity then awards a JOC contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The lowest responsible bidder then enters into a JOC contract with the public entity. JOC contracts typically have a duration of one (1) year and are limited to a total construction value of $4.9 million increased annually based on the Consumer Price Index. When entering into a JOC contract, a JOC contractor agrees to perform work at prices set forth in a Construction Task Catalog also known as a unit price book which includes current local labor, material and equipment costs. Unit prices are then adjusted by a “bid adjustment factor” based on the JOC contractor’s bid. When work is needed, the public entity will then issue a job order to the JOC contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

June 10, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The employee exclusions in the employer's CGL and Umbrella policies barred coverage. Piatt v. Indiana Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Mo. LEXIS 32 (Mo. April 28, 2015). Linda Nunley was killed while working for Missouri Hardwood Charcoal, Inc. The kiln's large steel door had been removed and was leaning upright against another kiln when it blew over and crushed Ms. Nunley. Her family filed a wrongful death suit against Junior Flowers, the company's sole owner, director, and executive officer. The complaint alleged that Flowers was negligent in ordering employees to lean the kiln doors upright, even though he knew it was unsafe. The complaint further alleged that Flowers breached a personal duty of care owed to Ms. Nunley and that his actions were "something more" that a breach of the company's duty to provide a safe workplace. Flowers requested a defense under CGL and Umbrella policies issued by Lumbermen's. The policies insured Missouri Hardwood and its executive officers, but excluded liability for a work-related injury to an "employee of the insured." The policies also had a "separation of insureds" provision, stating that the insurance applied "separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought." Lumbermen's denied coverage. 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

Treble Damages Awarded After Insurer Denies Coverage for Collapse

July 03, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fourth Circuit upheld the district court's decision that a collapse was covered, but reversed the denial of treble damages to the insured. DENC, LLC v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10443 (4th Cir. April 18, 2022). The district court decision was summarized here. DENC owned The Crest, an apartment building leased to Elon University for student housing. Philadelphia Indemnity Company insured the property. In January 2018, students gathered on a second-floor breezeway for a party. Partygoers began jumping in the breezeway, which caused an abrupt collapse. Observers noticed that the breezeway was hanging down by more that a foot. DENC filed a claim with Philadelphia the next day. An adjuster was sent to inspect the breezeway. By that time, the city had condemned The Crest. The adjuster said that undiscovered "water damage which occurred over an extended period of time" caused the loss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition

April 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to GlobeSt.com, “Homebuilder Trumark Homes has hired James Furey as VP of land acquisition.” The “veteran developer” has held positions at Meritage Homes, Richmond American Homes, and Beazer Homes USA. “James is a versatile manager who brings a wealth of experience in many elements of the homebuilding process,” Jason Kliewer, partner and general counsel for Trumark, told GlobeSt.com. “He will be an invaluable asset as Trumark moves aggressively in the California market.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

April 11, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
A friend came to me with a question regarding a case he was working: “can a public owner require that bidders use a specific brand name product?” “Of course not,” I said “proprietary specifications are illegal.” Or, at least that’s what I assumed. To my surprise, the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not as clear as it is in other jurisdictions. What is a proprietary specification? A proprietary specification lists a product by brand name, make, model and/model that a contractor must (shall) utilize in construction. A basic example of a proprietary specification would state:

“Air Handlers shall be “Turbo Max” as manufactured by Chiller Corp.”

There are two problems with a proprietary specification (other than potentially being illegal): (a) they limit competition, and (b) invite steered contract awards. They limit competition because it limits the type of material that can be used on the project. In the example above, there could be equivalent air handlers available at a better price but the contractor could not use that lower priced product in its bid. Thus, the taxpayers end up paying more for tile. Also, contractors may not be able to secure a certain brand name product because of exclusive distribution agreements. Again, using the example above, contractor A’s competitor may have the exclusive distribution agreement with Chiller Corp. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower

June 18, 2014 — Michelle Yun – Bloomberg
Citigroup Inc. (C) paid a record HK$5.4 billion ($697 million) to a unit of Wheelock & Co. for a Hong Kong office tower that will bring most of its 5,000 employees under one roof. The price for the 512,000 square-foot property in Kowloon is the largest ever office transaction in Hong Kong, the New York-based bank said in a statement yesterday. The tower, scheduled for completion by the end of 2015, will be used to house staff currently spread out across offices in the city, said Weber Lo, the bank’s chief executive officer for Hong Kong and Macau. Citigroup joins banks and insurers in buying buildings in the city as falling vacancies pose a challenge for companies looking for large office spaces, realtor CBRE Group Inc., which advised the deal, said in a first-quarter review report. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Yun, Bloomberg
Ms. Yun may be contacted at myun11@bloomberg.net

Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?

September 20, 2021 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Courts overseeing receivers generally enjoy broad discretion in directing and approving a receiver’s proposed actions. But does that authority extend to a receiver not only granting a super-priority lien ahead of existing liens, but also selling the real property free and clear of all liens? In County of Sonoma v. Quail, 56 Cal.App.5th 657 (Ct. App. 2020), the California Court of Appeals answered that question in the affirmative. Quail involved a 47,480 square-foot lot with two houses, a few garages, several outbuildings, and numerous trailers surrounded by a veritable junk yard. Despite many of these structures being uninhabitable, unsanitary, and dangerous, multiple families resided on the lot. Although Sonoma County (the “County”) ordered the owner to remediate the property several times, he failed and refused to do so. After several years of these violations going unabated, the County ultimately sought and obtained the appointment of a receiver over the real property. To obtain funds necessary to repair the property, the receiver asked the court for permission to borrow money through the issuance of a receivership certificate to be secured by a super-priority lien—i.e., a lien ahead of all other liens—against the real property. Although the trial court initially declined to prime existing liens, when the receiver could find no one to lend money (since the land lacked equity), the trial court relented and approved a super-priority lien despite the senior secured lender’s objection (the “lender”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

March 02, 2020 — Bethany L. Barrese & Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Aggreko, LLC v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co.,1 the Fifth Circuit affirmed a decision by the Texas District Court and held that a Covenant Not to Execute constituted a “settlement” sufficient to exhaust policy limits and terminate a primary insurer’s duty to defend. This case arose out of a wrongful death suit filed by the parents of James Brenek II (“Brenek”). In 2014, Brenek was fatally electrocuted by an electrically energized generator housing cabinet while performing work on a rig in Texas for Guichard Operating Company, LLC (“Guichard”), a Louisiana-based drilling subcontractor. Guichard had leased the generator from Aggreko, LLC (“Aggreko”). A rental agreement between Guichard and Aggreko required Guichard to maintain commercial general liability insurance during the lease period and list Aggreko and the rig owner, Rutherford Oil Corporation (“Rutherford”), as additional insureds under the policy. Guichard’s primary insurance carrier, The Gray Insurance Company (“Gray”), agreed to defend and indemnify Aggreko and Rutherford in the wrongful death suit. The Gray policy had a limit of $1,000,000, subject to a $50,000 self-insured retention. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at amw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES