FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner

July 26, 2017 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Subcontractors on public projects in Washington State will no longer be required to wait until final acceptance of the project to get their retainage money. A new statute, which goes into effect on July 23, 2017 and applies only to Washington public projects, will allow subcontractors to get their retainage sooner. Under prior law, a subcontractor could only get its retainage prior to final acceptance if the general contractor provided a retainage bond to the public owner to secure a release of the general contractor’s retainage and the subcontractor then provided a similar retainage bond to the general contractor in the amount of its own retainage. If the general contractor decided to not provide a retainage bond to the owner, the subcontractor would be forced to wait until final acceptance of the project before it could get paid its retainage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at bhill@ac-lawyers.com

---

How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

November 08, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Although there are different types of construction schedule float and more technical definitions, the definition that makes sense to me is that float is the amount of time a particular activity can be delayed without that activity delaying the project’s completion date (substantial completion date). In looking at a construction schedule, this determination is made from looking at the difference between the early start date for an activity and the late start date for that activity or the difference between the early finish date for that activity and the late finish date for that activity in your CPM schedule (which should be the same amount of time). This is often referred to as “total float” and is the float that I usually focus on since it may pertain to a delay to the substantial completion date of the project and can trigger either the assessment of liquidated damages and/or the contractor’s extended general conditions, whatever the case may be. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?

October 20, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
There is an argument that a performance bond is not liable for delay damages UNLESS the bond specifically allows for the recovery of such damages. Keep this in mind when requiring a performance bond so that the bond covers the associated risks (and damages) you contemplate when requiring the bond. This argument is supported by the Florida Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in American Home Assur. Co. v. Larkin General Hosp., Ltd., 593 So.2d 195, 198 (Fla. 1992):

The language in the performance bond, construed together with the purpose of the bond, clearly explains that the performance bond merely guaranteed the completion of the construction contract and nothing more. Upon default, the terms of the performance bond required American [performance bond surety] to step in and either complete construction or pay Larkin [obligee] the reasonable costs of completion. Because the terms of the performance bond control the liability of the surety, American’s liability will not be extended beyond the terms of the performance bond. Therefore, American cannot be held liable for delay damages.

However, the Eleventh Circuit in National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Const. Co., 320 F.3d 1260(11th Cir. 2003), also analyzing an issue relating to the recoverability of delay-type damages against a performance bond, did not narrowly interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Larkin General Hospital. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

---

Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The New Jersey Law Journal reported that Peter Cammarano III, a former Hoboken, New Jersey, mayor, was disbarred after admitting “four years ago that he took $25,000 in bribes from a federal informant in exchange for promising his help in getting approval for a high-rise.” Cammarano “was one of 44 public officials and rabbis arrested in July 2009 as part of a massive federal investigation, known as Operation Bid Rig, into public corruption and money laundering operations.” The Disciplinary review board had recommended a three year suspension, however, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected that recommendation. “An elected official who sells his office—who offers favored treatment in exchange for money—betrays a solemn public trust,” Justice Barry Albin wrote for the court, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. “This form of corruption is corrosive to our democracy and undermines public confidence in honest government, and its rippling pernicious effects are incalculable.” “I believe the Disciplinary Review Board’s decision was right,” Joseph Jr. Hayden, Cammarano’s attorney, told the New Jersey Law Journal. “There were sufficient mitigating factors to justify only a suspension.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in a Premises Liability Matter

November 05, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Newport Beach Partner Courtney Serrato and Associate Joseph Real on Prevailing on a Motion for Summary Judgment for their Client! Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and premises liability against BWB&O’s client, a general contractor of a multi-level construction project. Plaintiff was injured after a fall at the construction project and filed suit against BWB&O’s client and another subcontractor. Plaintiff alleged BWB&O’s client was negligent and was responsible for causing Plaintiff’s fall. BWB&O filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing under the Privette Doctrine and its progeny, it neither owed nor breached any duty to Plaintiff and that no exception to the doctrine applied. Under the Privette Doctrine, when a person or entity hires an independent contractor to provide work or services, and one of the contractor’s employees is injured on the job, the hirer is generally not liable to the employee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

January 14, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Phil Henderson, owner of Stevensville Hardware which is adjacent to the theater, has sued the Stevensville Playhouse, alleging that one of the theater building’s walls leans over into his property, according to the Bitterroot Star. Henderson stated that the leaning wall is interfering with construction plan, and he also alleges that the building is not safe and should be condemned. A building inspector hired by Henderson declared that “…it seems necessary to notify the Stevensville Playhouse that their structure is to be immediately considered unsafe for entry, occupancy, etc.” However, another engineering firm presented a different view on the situation: “The playhouse has withstood many snow storms and earthquakes during its life and will likely continue to function well into the future. We do not mean to downplay the need to perform the recommended repairs, but we do not feel that the building needs to be condemned at this point.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

San Diego Appellate Team Prevails in Premises Liability Appeal

December 06, 2021 — Corinne Bertsche, Jeffry Miller & Tracy Forbath - Lewis Brisbois
San Diego, Calif. (October 28, 2021) - San Diego Appellate Practice Partners Jeffry A. Miller and Corinne C. Bertsche, along with Associate Tracy D. Forbath, recently obtained a win on appeal when California's Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Four affirmed the trial court’s grant of a client homeowners association’s motion for summary judgment. In the underlying matter, the plaintiff alleged claims for premises liability and negligence for injuries he sustained when tripping over an uplift of two misaligned adjacent slabs of concrete sidewalk, measuring 1.25 inches and located next to a condominium complex. The appellate court agreed that the defect in question was a trivial defect as a matter of law, despite the plaintiff’s arguments that there was a triable issue of material fact as to whether the uplift’s dangerousness was exacerbated by the presence of aggravating factors. The appellate court found that the plaintiff’s expert declaration did not support the alleged aggravating factors with admissible evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it. Reprinted courtesy of Corinne Bertsche, Lewis Brisbois, Jeffry Miller, Lewis Brisbois and Tracy Forbath, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Bertsche may be contacted at Corinne.Bertsche@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Miller may be contacted at Jeff.Miller@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Forbath may be contacted at Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Water Damage Sub-Limit Includes Tear-Out Costs

June 06, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that the homeowner policy's sub-limit for water damage included tear-out costs. Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Vazquez, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1205 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2022). A discharge of water from the cast iron pipes caused damage to the home. The water escaped as a result of the failed cast iron pipes due to wear and tear, deterioration, and corrosion. The insurer acknowledged coverage for the water damage and paid $10,000 under the Limited Water Damage Endorsement (LWD Endorsement). The provision recited that "'[t]he limit of liability for all damage to covered property provided by this endorsement is $10,000 per loss." The insureds' suit argued they were entitled to additional benefits for the cost to tear out and replace a part of the concrete slab - an action necessary to reach the corroded pipes. The parties stipulated that the cost of the tear-out would be $40,000. The parties agreed that the LWD Endorsement provided coverage of both water damage and tear-out costs. They also agreed that the cost to repair and/or replace the corroded pipes was not covered. They disagreed, however, over the proper interpretation of the limitation of liability provision in the LWD Endorsement. The insured argued that the $10,000 limit applied to both water damage and tear-out costs. The insureds argued that the $10,00 limit applied only to water damage to covered property. 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

---