Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

August 30, 2017 — Jessica Stark - Construction Informer
There is no question that organization on the job site can mean the difference between efficient performance and costly errors. A simple mistake can cost a company thousands, which is why details are carefully articulated and supervisors become better scrutinizers than magazine editors. But for some reason, many companies don’t consider managing job site inventory under this same attentive category, or perhaps they don’t know about the technology available to help them do it. Whole Inventory, Big to Small For contractors, keeping track of every piece of material and equipment lowers losses and keeps crews busy. This is especially true for contractors in the trades who often have specialized equipment in inventory such as power supplies, HVAC “smart energy” components or inspection equipment. Once everything is accounted for, the possibility of loss is decreased and there’s a chance to evaluate the use of all materials and equipment. This can show the efficiency of allotted resources. Is there enough equipment on the site to get tasks completed? Is there a need for more? Less? Having excess equipment can sometimes prepare a crew for problem scenarios. But it can also mean the construction company is overpaying for unneeded resources. However, the only way to know is by effectively managing job site inventory. That includes all equipment and materials. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Stark, Construction Informer

Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

December 29, 2020 — Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
A recent decision by Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals in Puget Sound Energy, Inc v. Pilchuck Contractors, Inc.[1] demonstrates the broad application of the construction statute of repose to work performed by contractors. The construction statute of repose[2] bars certain legal claims based on construction activity if the alleged harm caused by the activity does not occur within a specific timeframe. The claims covered by the construction statute of repose include: all claims or causes of action of any kind against any person, arising from such person having constructed, altered, or repaired any improvement upon real property, or having performed or furnished any design, planning, surveying, architectural or construction or engineering services, or supervision or observation of construction, or administration of construction contracts for any construction, alteration or repair of any improvement upon real property.[3] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com

Reroof Blamed for $10 Million in Damage

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A renovation of the city hall in Bay City, Michigan went wrong when roof repairs lead to fire and flooding of the historic building. Bay City has sued Gregory Construction and Mihm Enterprises, who earlier had been awarded a $1.5 million contract to reroof the building. The cost of repairing the building is expected to exceed the city’s insurance limit of $10 million. The fire that damaged the building is alleged to have started when a roofer allegedly used a DeWalt grinder in attempt to remove some bolts. Under the contract with the city, the contractor was not going to use grinders, due to the risk of fire. The suit alleges that further water damage was caused, beyond the damage due to the firefighting, due to the contractor failing to “secure a section of the roof which was part of the Roofing Project with a tarp or other water-resistant covering.” The contractors dispute the claims made by Bay City, with Gregory Construction describing them as “untrue and contrary to the facts.” Gregory Construction also claims that their obligations were delegated to Mihn Enterprises. Mihn Enterprises disputes this and states that they do not “owe a duty to the Plaintiffs; as a result their negligence claim is unenforceable as a matter of law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Henderson Land to Spend $839 Million on Hong Kong Retail Complex

September 03, 2014 — Michelle Yun – Bloomberg
Henderson Land Development Co. (12), controlled by billionaire Lee Shau-kee, will spend HK$6.5 billion ($839 million) on a shopping center in a prime retail area of Hong Kong after beating 17 rivals to win a land tender. The complex in the Tsim Sha Tsui district will be completed by 2019 and will house retail, services and dining, as well as a public 345-space parking garage, spokeswoman Bonnie Ngan said yesterday, citing Vice Chairman Martin Lee. Henderson won the site for HK$4.69 billion as the highest bidder, the government said in a statement yesterday. Henderson beat other developers, including Cheung Kong Holdings Ltd. (1), Sino Land Co. (83), and Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd., to win the site in the district host to global luxury brands and hotels such as the Peninsula. The price was more than the HK$3.4 billion median estimate of three surveyors compiled by Bloomberg News. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Yun, Bloomberg
Ms. Yun may be contacted at myun11@bloomberg.net

Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

March 04, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As Morrissey of the Smith’s sang: Coyness is nice, but Coyness can stop you, from saying all the things in life you’d like to. It’s not uncommon in litigation to see a complaint asking for “damages according to proof.” Call it laziness. Call it hiding the ball. Call it coy, even. I call it risky. And here’s why: If a defendant doesn’t appear and you need to seek a default judgment against him, her, or it, you are barred from doing so, since you are limited to recovering the amount you sought. And last I checked, something of nothing is nothing. In Yu v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. G054522 (December 11, 2018), one plaintiff found this out the hard way, although perhaps not quite in the way they expected it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

“To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

April 05, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In California, it is well-established that the extent of a party’s obligation under an indemnity agreement is an issue of contractual interpretation, and it is therefore the intent of the parties that should control. What is the parties’ intent, then, when a subcontractor (indemnitor) agrees to indemnify the general contractor (indemnitee) “except to the extent the claims arise out of the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct”? Does this mean the general contractor is barred entirely from recovering any indemnity if its active negligence contributed to the injury? Not according to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, which recently held that an actively negligent general contractor may still recover indemnity for the portion of liability attributable to the fault of others. Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc., No. A147313, 2017 WL 1179391, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017). In Oltmans Construction, an employee of O’Donnell Plastering, Inc. (“O’Donnell”), a sub-subcontractor of Bayside Interiors, Inc. (“Bayside”), which was a subcontractor to Oltmans Construction Company (“Oltmans”), sustained injuries when he fell through a skylight opening in the roof of a building under construction. The employee filed suit against Bayside, Oltmans, and the building’s owner, arguing Oltmans negligently cut and left unsecured the skylight opening. Oltmans subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint against Bayside and O’Donnell, contending it was entitled to indemnification under the governing agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

June 11, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Lexology, Amy Kuo Alexander of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP analyzed recent decisions involving California’s Right to Repair Act, SB 800. According to Alexander, “SB 800, applies to all new residential construction sold after January 1, 2003” and “[i]t establishes a process to resolve certain construction defect claims prior to the filing of any lawsuit by a homeowner of new residential construction.” Alexander’s three main discussion points include “SB 800 is Not the Exclusive Remedy,” “Notice Requirements to Builder Under SB 800,” and “Parties Can Opt Out of SB 800 to Adopt Their Own Prelitigation Procedure So Long as the Terms Are Not Unconscionable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Your Bad Faith Jury Instruction Against an Insurer is Important

March 09, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A statutory bad faith claim against an insurer is derived from Florida Statute s. 624.155. A bad faith claim against a first party insurer, such as a property insurer, must be statutory. Check out the hyperlink of the statute, but a party must first file a Civil Remedy Notice identifying the statutory violations to preserve the statutory bad faith claim giving the insurer an opportunity to cure. In a noteworthy case, Cooper v. Federated National Insurance Company, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2961a (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), the Fifth District Court of Appeal dealt with the jury instruction for an insured’s statutory bad faith claim against their property insurer. The insured filed a bad faith claim predicated on the property insurer violating the provisions of Florida Statute s. 626.9541(1)(i)3, which involves unfair claim settlement practices. The insured had a jury trial and submitted a proposed jury instruction regarding bad faith that tracked the very essence of their bad faith claim and was modeled after s. 626.9541(1)(i)(3). The trial court, however, denied this jury instruction, instead adopting a standard jury instruction for bad faith. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the property insurer and the insured appealed arguing it was reversible error for the trial court NOT to present to the jury their bad faith jury instruction. The Fifth District agreed and ordered a new trial finding that the trial court’s failure to present the jury instruction amounted to a miscarriage of justice. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES