Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

MTA Implements Revised Contractors Debarment Regulations

July 06, 2020 — Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff & Paul Monte - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
On June 3, 2020, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (“MTA”) published and implemented revised regulations pertaining to the debarment of contractors. The revised regulations address many of the deep concerns raised by the contracting community. Under relevant administrative procedure, the MTA publication of the revised regulations starts a 45 day notice period before the regulations can be adopted as final. The prior regulations essentially required that debarment occur upon a purely formulaic calculation establishing that a contractor: 1) was more than 10% late, or 2) had submitted invalid claims that exceeded the adjusted contract price by a measure of 10%. The revised regulations represent improvements over the prior regulations. Critically, the revised regulations address the primary concern raised by the contracting community, that being the mandate of purely formulaic debarment. Instead, the revised regulations establish a process that includes greater flexibility and discretion before debarment may ensue. Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff and Paul Monte Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

October 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Wisconsin couple that leased then bought a home cannot sue the couple that built the home for construction defects. The court rejected the claims made by Niksa and Kelly Ivancevic that the sellers, Ronald and Debra Reagan, had breached contract or that the contract represented a mutual mistake. The Ivancevics initially leased the home, with an agreement that said the house would be “delivered in clean condition and good repair, free of mold and toxic substances, suitable for habitation in compliance with all laws.” Before the purchase, no defects were found. After the purchase, the Ivancevics had problems with the air conditioning, leading to water leaks on the second floor. The court found that the actual sales contract did not guarantee a defect-free residence. Therefore the Ivancevic’s claim of a mutual mistake, in which “both parties of a contact are unaware of the existence of a past or present fact material to their agreement” did not apply, since the presence of construction defects was not “material to their agreement.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

September 17, 2014 — Jerrold Anders & Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLP
In Prieto Corp. v. Gambone Construction Co., the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered three issues arising out of a construction dispute, including whether construction of a curb falls within the scope of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516. CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is intended to protect contractors and subcontractors from abuses in the building industry and which establishes certain rules and deadlines for payments between owners, contractors, and subcontractors. Failure to abide by the act’s payment requirements subjects an owner or contractor to liability for interest, penalties and attorneys fees. In this case, Prieto was a subcontractor hired by Gambone to construct concrete or Belgian block curbs at Gambone’s property developments. Prieto sued Gambone under CASPA for failure to pay its invoices for four projects. After the trial court entered judgment for Prieto, Gambone appealed, arguing that CASPA did not encompass the work at issue, i.e. the construction of curbs, because curbs did not constitute an improvement to real property. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold Anders, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Impairing Your Insurer’s Subrogation Rights

May 06, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Liability insurance policies have a provision that allows them to subrogate to the rights of their insured. This provision is commonly referred to as a transfer of rights provision and reads: If the insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have made under this Coverage Part, those rights are transferred to us. The insured must do nothing after loss to impair them. At our request, the insured will bring “suit” or transfer those rights to us and help us enforce them. In a recent dispute, an insurer sued its insured claiming the insured breached the insurance policy-a contract—by impairing the insurer’s subrogation rights. In other words, the insurer claimed its insured breach the insurance contract and the transfer of rights provision above. 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

Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

August 13, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court reversed the trial court's determination that the policy covered only mold damage, but not damage caused by water seepage. Henderson v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 539 (Ga. Ct. App. July 16, 2014). The homeowner's policy covered losses caused by constant seepage or leakage of water or the presence of condensation or moisture over a period of time. The insureds also paid for additional coverage for "ensuing mold . . . caused by or resulting from" one of the covered risks, including water seepage. Ms. Henderson discovered a puddle of water in her kitchen and contacted Georgia Farm Bureau. The insurer's contractor tore out a section of the floor, but found no other problems of water seepage. Later, the Hendersons removed another part of the floor and discovered standing water and black mold underneath. The Hendersons had to vacate their house for one year. 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

What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

March 18, 2019 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

Quick Note: COVID-19 Claim – Proving Causation

August 03, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In certain jurisdictions, the number of people testing positive for COVID-19 is on the rise. As this occurs, there is the possibility that a construction project will have to deal with one or more workers testing positive. That is the current reality. If the dialogue has not occurred before, now is the time to discuss any enhanced measures—above OSHA guidelines—that could be implemented to address this reality and mitigate the risk. Part of the reality, though, is that regardless of the enhanced measures and mitigation, it is impossible to truly prevent this risk. No one disputes COVID-19. There may be a dispute as to whether COVID-19 constitutes a force majeure event or some other event, however, before you start labeling it, you still NEED TO PROVE the impact caused by COVID-19. There needs to be a cause-and-effect relationship so you can address (i) how this impacted the critical path of your schedule and/or (ii) how this impacted labor productivity. In other words, you need to prove causation. Stating there was a delay or loss of productivity without establishing the cause-and-effect relationship (i.e, causation) provides no value because it does not support the production impact or time extension and, without either, there is no basis for additional compensation (even if you establish it should be deemed an excusable, compensable delay). 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

Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

March 01, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
It’s been a whirlwind since Donald Trump became President. Some might even say a tornado. Many believed (including myself) that he couldn’t win. I was wrong. Some also believed (again, including myself) that he wouldn’t make good on his campaign promises. So far, he has. While I usually don’t like being wrong, if there’s one thing I couldn’t be happier being wrong about, it’s President Trump’s promises to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. So, what can the construction industry expect under our first developer-turned-POTUS, Donald Trump, who is arguably the most exciting President for the construction industry since FDR? Where We Are Today The American Society of Engineers, in its oft-cited infrastructure “Report Card,” gave nation’s infrastructure an overall grade of D+, with an estimated investment infusion of $3.6 trillion needed by 2020 just to keep the nation’s infrastructure in “good” (note, not “great”) repair. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES