Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Limitations: There is a Point of No Return

September 06, 2023 — Amy Anderson - ConsensusDocs
After nearly any event that causes inefficiency, delay, or extra cost on a project, there are some things you should always do: review the contract and document the inefficiency, delay, or cost. However, how you document the particular issue likely changes depending on what is in your contract, your position on the project, and the outcome you hope to reach. In reviewing the inefficiency, delay, or cost, one thing to always consider is how long you have to actually recoup damages you may incur if they were caused by another party on the project. In every jurisdiction (state or federal), there is likely to be some outer limit to when you can bring litigation or arbitration against an opposing party to recover damages another party causes to you. This is generally called a statute of limitations or statute of repose, although it goes by other names depending on your state. The length of time will be specific to the locality. For example, in Texas, you have four years to bring a breach of contract claim but only two years to bring a negligence claim. Whether you fall under the two year or four year period may be highly fact intensive, depending on your claims. Do you have a contract directly with the party that is at fault? Is the claim based on your contract or some tort outside of the contract? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amy Anderson, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at aanderson@joneswalker.com

Another Reason to Always Respond (or Hensel Phelps Wins One!)

September 16, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, Hensel Phelps Construction Co. is best known as the company that got whipsawed between indemnity rules and the lack of a statute of limitations for state agencies. However a recent case out of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave them a win and illustrates, once again, that failing to appear or respond is never a good option. In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Perdomo Industrial LLC, the Alexandria, VA federal court looked at an arbitration award entered for Hensel Phelps and against Perdomo under the Federal Arbitration Act. The facts of the case showed that Perdomo “double dipped” into the deep end of refusal or failure to respond. First of all, the contract required arbitration and any award was enforceable in any state or federal court having jurisdiction. Based upon this language, Hensel Phelps filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against Perdomo and its surety, AAA sent notice to both Perdomo and Surety, and. . . neither responded or appeared at what was ultimately 8 days of hearings. After hearing Hensel Phelp’s evidence and the total lack of defenses from Perdomo and Surety, the panel issued an award in favor of Hensel Phelps, finding Perdomo LLC in default and holding Perdomo LLC and Allied World jointly and severally liable in the amount of $2,958,209.71 and Perdomo LLC individually liable in the amount of $7,917,666.30 plus interest. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

EPA Threatens Cut in California's Federal Highway Funds

October 14, 2019 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
In a new salvo against the state of California, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has threatened to restrict uses for some federal highway aid to the state unless it moves to withdraw what EPA terms “backlogged and unapprovable" plans that outline steps the state would take to reduce pollution and meet Clean Air Act standards. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable

August 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Mike Bosse of Bernstein Shur, analyzed a case involving Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc. (KBR) and the U.S. Army for services that KBR provided during Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to JDSupra Business Advisor: “The court case involved KBR’s construction of dining facility services near Mosul, Iraq under a cost-plus fee arrangement. Under this contractual arrangement, all allowable costs were reimbursed by the government plus the contractor was paid an additional fee.” KBR first started on a prefabricated metal dining hall that would serve 2,500 people, but part way into building they were told to stop construction and to instead start on a new reinforced concrete building that would serve almost three times as many people. “After construction was finished, a defense contract auditing agency suspended some of the payments to KBR and instead of the $12.5 million it expected to receive, KBR was paid only $6.7 million,” reported JDSupra Business Advisor. “After trial, the court concluded KBR did not meet its burden to show the costs it incurred were reasonable under the circumstances.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

February 24, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Is the enforceability of a no-damage-for-delay provision inappropriate for resolution on a summary judgment? The recent decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Kingston Environmental Services, Inc. v. David Boland, Inc., 2019 WL 6178676 (D. Hawaii 2019), dealing with Florida law, suggests that it is inappropriate for a summary judgment resolution, particularly when there is a right to a jury trial. In this case, a prime contractor was hired on a federal construction project in Hawaii. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor and the subcontractor sued the prime contractor and its surety under the Miller Act. Of interest, the subcontractor was seeking to recover for the costs it incurred due to construction delays. The prime contractor moved for summary judgment as to the no-damage-for-delay provision in the subcontract. The no-damages-for-delay provision read as follows (and it is a well-written no-damage-for-delay provision): The Subcontractor expressly agrees that the Contractor shall not be liable to the Subcontractor for any damages or additional costs, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, resulting in whole or in part from a delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration of the commencement or execution of the Work, caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions, whether negligent or not, of the Contractor including other subcontractors or material suppliers to the Project, its agents, employees, or third parties acting on behalf of the Contractor. The Subcontractor’s sole remedy for any such delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration shall be a noncompensable time extension. 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

“Since You Asked. . .”

October 15, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
… you must now pay. So said a California appellate court, affirming the trial court’s decision against a subcontractor suing for unpaid subcontract sums. Instead of being awarded those unpaid amounts, the subcontractor lost the case and was tagged with a $1.55 million attorney’s fees award and $270,000 costs award in favor of the defendants. What went wrong? California law requires a licensed contractor to maintain at all times proper workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The failure to maintain the coverage and have the certificate of coverage on file with the California Contractors State License Board results in “automatic and immediate suspension” of the contractor license. Retroactive reinstatement of the license may occur only if the contractor provides proof of the insurance within 90 days of the effective date of the insurance certificate – unless the contractor can show that failure to have the certificate on file was “due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake

November 23, 2016 — Tim Newcomb – Engineering News-Record
Moving from the lab to the field, a highway off-ramp bridge under construction in Seattle features memory-retaining metal rods and bendable concrete designed to provide the structure with flexibility sufficient to withstand a major seismic event. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record
Engineering News-Record may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Provision Relating to Statutory Authority for Constructing and Operating Sports and Tourism Complexes

June 18, 2019 — Amanda Z. Weaver - Snell & Wilmer
In an opinion published February 25, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Maricopa County’s surcharge on car rental agencies to fund a stadium and other sports- and tourism-related projects did not violate either the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution or the anti-diversion provision of the Arizona Constitution, art. 9, § 14. Saban Rent-a-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue. In 2000, the Arizona Legislature created the Arizona Tourism and Sports Authority (the Authority) to build and/or operate a variety of sports-related facilities, including Major League Baseball spring training facilities, and youth and amateur sports and recreation centers. Taxes and surcharges, approved by voters, are the sole funding for the Authority’s construction projects, including the challenged surcharge in Maricopa County. This surcharge is based on the income from car rental companies leasing vehicles to customers for less than one year, and is the greater of $2.50 per rental or 3.25% of the company’s gross proceeds or income. A.R.S. § 5-839. The state treasurer deposits $2.50 per rental transaction into the Maricopa County Stadium District, as it has since 1991, and the remaining amount of the difference between $2.50 per transaction and 3.25% of the company’s gross income or proceeds is distributed to the Authority. Rental car companies often pass this surcharge on to their customers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda Z. Weaver, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Weaver may be contacted at aweaver@swlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES