Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/18/23) – Construction Inventory, 3D Printing, and Metaverse Replicas

February 06, 2023 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
This week’s round-up dives into projections on construction inventory in the housing market, the first 3D-printed house, a replica of South Korea’s Seoul in the Metaverse, and more.

Shifts that occurred last year and at the peak of pandemic have transformed the real estate industry, with 2023 emerging as something of a barometer in the manifestations of those changes. (Tony Cantu, Mortgage Professional America (MPA))
Total new construction of homes across the country is expected to drop by 200,000 dwellings per year until 2026 as skill shortages and supply issues continue to bite. (Sowaibah Hanifie, 7 News)
Almost all economists and contractors expect some sort of an economic slowdown this year. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

May 15, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability

September 29, 2021 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible. LG Electronics arose from a fire at the home of Thomas and Lisa Ellis. The public sector fire investigator identified the area of fire origin as the top of a refrigerator manufactured by LG Electronics USA, Inc. (LG). The Ellises filed a claim with their homeowner’s insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company (Insurer). Insurer retained a fire investigator and an electrical engineer to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator agreed with the public sector investigator that the fire originated at the top of the refrigerator. The engineer conducted a forensic inspection of the scene and ruled out all potential external ignition sources. He then examined the internal components of the refrigerator. He found arcing activity on a wire at the front top of the refrigerator. He opined that there were two possible causes of the fire: either the heater circuit insulation failed over time due to mechanical damage, or the heat from the internal light fixture ignited combustible components of the refrigerator. Since the engineer ruled out improper use of the refrigerator, he opined that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

December 15, 2016 — William S. Bennett – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently decided that a broad total pollution exclusion in a marine general liability policy did not bar coverage. The insurer could not unambiguously establish, based on the facts of the underlying case, that waste from a shipyard’s sandblasting activities met the requirements of the exclusion. The court found that the insurer could not meet Louisiana’s three-part test to determine whether the policy’s total pollution exclusion applied. The Doerr test requires an insurer to refer to the allegations in the underlying complaint to prove 1) the insured is a “polluter”, 2) the injury-causing substance is a “pollutant,” and 3) there was a “discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape” of the pollutant. Total pollution exclusions are extremely prohibitive for policyholders because they eliminate coverage for virtually all pollution incidents, but this decision reinforces that policyholders may still have a path to coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

Let the 90-Day Countdown Begin

February 11, 2019 — Amy L. Pierce & Robert A. James - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Most contractors are diligent about making sure that they pay their licensing fees, renew worker’s compensation insurance, and maintain the required bonds. What may be less obvious is how critically important it is to have current company personnel listed on the company’s licensing records with the Contractor’s State Licensing Board. Only personnel listed on the CSLB’s records are authorized to act on behalf of the licensee with respect to CSLB-related matters. Although this may sound simple enough, all such personnel will be required to comply with fingerprinting (and background check) requirements before their applications to be added to the company’s licensing records can be approved. No new personnel will be associated with the licensee until their application is determined to be acceptable and all other requirements are met. Unforeseeable processing delays could result in this new personnel being unable to timely act on behalf of the licensee. Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and Robert A. James, Pillsbury Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Collaborating or Competing with Construction Tech Startups

November 15, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
I recently interviewed 20 experts and thought leaders about real estate and construction technology and innovation. Many of the interviewees talked about collaboration with startups and how to make the most of it. There’s a growing interest in construction technology. Construction tech firms have garnered $10 billion in investment funding from 2011 through early 2017, according to McKinsey & Company. AngelList, a startup and investor website, currently features over 13,000 companies with “construction” as a keyword. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?

October 21, 2019 — Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP - ConsensusDocs
Conflict in a negotiation is to be expected and is arguably healthy for the process. Owners and contractors are constantly engaged in negotiations; whether it be negotiating changes to the work, changes to the schedule, or changes to the contractual terms. But at what point does taking a strong position in a negotiation cross the line and become coercion or bad faith? A recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals touched on this very issue. While this is a government contract case, the issues discussed in this case (namely negotiating a change) are routinely encountered in just about every construction project. This decision is instructive because it adds to a trending line of cases that limit an owner’s and contractor’s negotiation tactics. On August 5, 2019, the board issued an opinion in the appeal of Sand Point Services, LLC vs. NASA, ASBCA Nos. 6189. In Sand Point Services, the contractor was hired by the owner to repair the Wallops Flight Facility’s aircraft parking apron. During its work, the contractor hit a differing site condition, namely unsuitable soils. The contractor sought additional time and money for this differing site condition. The owner ultimately responded with a show cause letter to the contractor claiming, among other breaches, that the contractor was significantly behind schedule. This was generally viewed by all parties as the start of default proceedings against the contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP
Mr. Millan may be contacted at smillan@joneswalker.com

Call to Conserve Power Raises Questions About Texas Grid Reliability

July 05, 2021 — Autumn Cafiero Giusti - Engineering News-Record
With the days getting hotter and tropical activity picking up in the Gulf of Mexico, concerns are mounting about the reliability of the Texas power supply after the state’s main grid operator asked residents to go on a five-day energy conservation diet. Reprinted courtesy of Autumn Cafiero Giusti, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES