Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

May 11, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I know, you’ve heard this over and over again here at Construction Law Musings: courts in Virginia will interpret a contract strictly and in a manner that gives meaning to its unambiguous terms. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, reinforces this point. The basic facts of the case relevant to this discussion and the Court’s opinion are these. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) hired White Oak Power Constructors (White Oak) to build a natural gas power plant. The contract between ODEC and White Oak provided for liquidated damages for delay and also contained a risk of loss provision making ODEC responsible for certain losses or damages due to property damage at the plant. I highly recommend that you read the facts of the case in full to get the details of the terms of these clauses. Needless to say (or this case wouldn’t be the subject of a construction law blog), the project ran past completion date and liquidated damages were assessed to the tune of more than $50,000,000.00. The delay was alleged to have been caused in substantial part by property damage due to weather, fire, and ice among other causes. 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

Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

July 05, 2021 — Caroline A. Harcourt, Natalie S. Starkman & Nika Bederman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In a previous post, we described how the New York City Climate Mobilization Act, 2019 (the CMA, or Local Laws 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 147 enacted in 2019) was passed with the goal of reducing New York City’s carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and by 80 percent by 2050 (as against a 2005 baseline as provided for in item 3 of Local Law 97). It is the most ambitious building emissions law to be enacted by any city in the world. The CMA impacts “Covered Buildings” (described below) and, besides contemplating the retrofitting of Covered Buildings to achieve energy efficiency and establishing a monitoring program for Covered Buildings, the CMA contemplates compliance by means of the purchase of carbon offset credits or renewable energy. (Note the new NYC Accelerator program, launched in 2012 by the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, provides guidance regarding energy-efficient upgrades to properties and emission reductions.) Pursuant to the CMA:

Beginning in 2024, Covered Buildings will have to meet the first emission targets, which are calculated by multiplying the gross floor area of each Covered Building by the occupancy classification as set forth in Local Law 97; and
In 2025, owners of Covered Buildings will need to establish compliance by submitting a report establishing such compliance (prepared by a certified design professional) to the newly created Office of Building Energy and Emissions Performance.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Caroline A. Harcourt, Pillsbury
Ms. Harcourt may be contacted at caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com

California Bid Protests: Responsiveness and Materiality

January 06, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
It can be a rough and tumble world out there. And in the case of public works construction in California, this includes bid disputes. California’s competitive bidding laws require that a public works contract be awarded to the “lowest responsible bidder.” However, as we’ve mentioned before, there are two requirements which must be satisfied for a bidder to be determined to be the lowest responsible bidder: (1) the awarded bidder’s bid must be “responsive”; and (2) the awarded bidder must be “responsible.” In a case decided this past month, DeSilva Gates Construction v. Department of Transportation, Case No. C074521 (December 14, 2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Third District addressed the first of these two requirements, whether two bids on $34 million highway widening project were responsive, which in turn involves a two-step process: (1) whether the bids were responsive or not; and (2) if not, whether the variance in the bids were “material” or “immaterial.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

November 21, 2017 — Mark Himmelstein & Jenny Guzman – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Originally published by CDJ on June 15, 2017 Since 2008 when the California legislature limited subcontractor indemnity obligations, the design professional community has been shouting “what about us?” Well, the legislature finally responded and a new law that limits design professional’s defense and indemnity obligations to their percentage of fault goes into effect on January 1, 2018. THE NEW LAW – SB 496 SB 496 amends California Civil Code section 2782.8 and states that indemnity agreements must be limited to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the indemnitee (i.e. no more Type I indemnity with design professionals). The amendment also provides that “in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design professional exceed the design professional’s proportionate percentage of fault”, with a limited opportunity for reallocation in the event another defendant is judgment proof. However, the duty to defend still remains and still arises at the time of the tender of the defense (both issues that were unsuccessfully targeted by the design professional lobbyists). Reprinted courtesy of Mark Himmelstein, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP and Jenny Guzman, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP Mr. Price may be contacted at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com Ms. Zucker may be contacted at jenny.guzman@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

February 24, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
ATTENTION: Nevada liability departments and auto insurance carriers! Nevada Senate Bill No. 435 was recently signed into law and there are two key points to be aware of: Disclosure of Policy Limits Demand and Voiding Releases. These both deal with pre-litigation situations. 1) Nevada law now requires a motor vehicle insurer to disclose the limits of the policy if the claimant provides a HIPAA authorization which allows the carrier to “receive all medical reports, records and bills related to the claim from the providers of health care.” This is a change from the previous Nevada statute which required the disclosure of policy limits only after litigation was commenced. However, it appears from the language of the statute that there are limits to this new mandate. Section 4 of the new law is written in such a way to allow the argument that the new law applies only to accidents that occurred after 10/1/19, and that the insurance company has to request the HIPAA waiver from the claimant in order for the disclosure requirement to apply. The plaintiff’s bar is already attempting to address this language in the legislature. As written, subsection (4) is governed by subsection (1) which states that the insurance company “may require the claimant … to provide … a written authorization.” The following subparts all appear to be triggered only by the act of the insurance company requesting a HIPAA waiver. The plaintiff’s bar is pushing for clarifying language that would make it clear that once the claimant sent a HIPAA waiver, irrespective of whether the document was requested by the insurance company or not, the insurance company is required to disclose policy limits. This is not how the law reads on its face, and the change would make a significant difference from a practical perspective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

A Retrospective As-Built Schedule Analysis Can Be Used to Support Delay

May 23, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Delay claims are part of construction. There should be no surprise why. Time is money. A delay claim should be accompanied by expert opinions that bolster evidence that gets introduced. The party against whom the delay claim is made will also have an expert – a rebuttal expert. Not surprisingly, each of the experts will rely on a different critical path as to relates to the same project. The party claiming delay will rely on a critical path that shows the actions of the other party impacted their critical path and proximately caused the delay. This will be refuted by the opposing expert that will challenge the critical path and the actions claimed had no impact on the critical path (i.e., did not proximately cause the delay). Quintessential finger pointing! This was the situation in CTA I, LLC v. Department of Veteran Affairs, CBCA 5826, 2022 WL 884710 (CBCA 2022), where the government terminated the contractor for convenience and the contractor claimed equitable adjustments for, among other things, delay. The contractor’s expert relied on an as-built critical path analysis by “retrospectively creating updates to insert between the contemporaneous updates.” Id., supra, n.3. The government’s expert did not do a retrospective as-built analysis and relied on only contemporaneous schedule updates. Id. 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

Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

March 28, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Courthouse News has a summary of the current lawsuit over a Nevada conspiracy to defraud homeowners by taking control of homeowner boards and then providing inadequate repairs. Homeowners in eight Las Vegas area communities are involved in the suit, which claims that the conspirators purchased units in the communities and then transferred fractional interests to others to allow them to run for HOA board elections. The suit claims that David Amesbury and his firm helped manipulate the elections.

Once homeowner boards were controlled by the conspirators, Nancy Quon, the construction defect attorney whose recent death appears to be by suicide, handled the litigation against homebuilders. She would settle out of court, engaging Silver Lining Construction to “do very minor and superficial repairs” to the homes. The remainder of the money was split by the conspirators. The suit also notes that the construction defect claims were “frivolous,” and?in addition to the negative publicity?caused the homes to lose at least 5% of their value.

Read the full story…

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

TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados Mostly Resolve Bridge Design Dispute

March 13, 2023 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The Texas Dept. of Transportation and contractor Flatiron/Dragados LLC have “completely satisfied” four of the five main design safety concerns the state agency raised over the under-construction new Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, officials say. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES