FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tender Is the Fight”

August 21, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A performance bond surety for a defaulted general contractor principal found itself with a recalcitrant owner which refused to accept the tender of a replacement general contractor to complete a $3,000,000 construction project in Monmouth County, New Jersey. Even before the original GC was off the job, the surety – having been notified of the contractor’s difficulties in performing the work – stepped in promptly, providing assistance in the form of an additional contractor. At the surety’s behest, that additional contractor remained on the project (focused principally at the time on roof repairs) after the initial GC was placed in default and terminated. Eventually, the surety, by draft tender agreement issued to the owner, offered that the additional contractor serve as the completion contractor for the entire project (not simply the roof repairs), a proposal rejected by the owner – which had never cared for the additional contractor. Instead, the owner proposed its own completion contractor and, in connection with that offer, demanded a sum of money ($1.6 million) from the surety – a proposal the surety rejected: “[Owner] cannot choose whatever contractor it wants to complete the work and then charge the costs to [the surety]." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract

February 28, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When an opinion in a case starts with, “Unlike some motions, not even the most ingenious lawyers could make this one complicated,” you know you are in for an interesting read. This was how the opinion started in U.S. f/u/b/o Hambric Steel and Fabrication, Inc. v. Leebcor Services, LLC, 2022 WL 345636 (M.D. GA. 2022), which concerns a Miller Act payment bond dispute between a subcontractor and prime contractor on a federal construction project. As demonstrated below, the moral of this case is in fact simple. Read what you sign BEFORE you sign! No ifs, ands, or buts. Failure to do so will garner very little sympathy. This case dealt with a prime contractor arguing that the subcontractor pulled the wool over its eyes by surreptitiously altering the final negotiated redlined contract between the parties. In particular, the prime contractor claimed that the dispute resolution provision was supposed to include a Virginia venue provision. However, the subcontractor “fraudulently” changed this provision to make it a Georgia venue provision after the final contract had been agreed to during the negotiation. Yet, it is undisputed that the executed contract between the parties included a Georgia venue provision. 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

---

Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

“(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

April 01, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Remember all of my posts about how fraud and contract claims don’t usually play well in litigation? Well, as always with the law, there are exceptions. For instance, a well plead Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim will survive a dismissal challenge. A recent opinion out of the Alexandria division of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia sets out another exception, namely so called fraudulent inducement. In XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Truland et al, the Court considered the question of whether both a tort and contract claim can coexist in the same lawsuit when the tort claim is based upon the information provided to the plaintiff when that information proves false. As the courts of Virginia have held for years, only certain information and statements made pre-contract can be the basis for a fraud claim in the face of a contractual duty to perform. One type of statement that is not properly the subject of a fraud in the inducement type claim is sales talk or opinion. Such sales talk (for example claiming that your company is the best for the job) is not the subject of a fraud claim because it is not meant to be relied upon and that such talk is an opinion about future performance, not a false statement of present fact or intent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

You Are Not A “Liar” Simply Because You Amend Your Complaint

March 14, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In litigation, it is common for a plaintiff to amend their complaint. They may amend to add additional parties. To add new claims. To change the factual allegations. Or, to change the theme of their case. Most of the time, complaints are not verified by the plaintiff. Instead, complaints are drafted and signed by the plaintiff’s counsel. A question becomes: how prior reiterations of a complaint can be used against the plaintiff to show they are a bunch of “liars” by making amendments to their complaint. Sounds prejudicial to the plaintiff, right? Particularly if there is a jury. The reality is that amending complaints for various reasons is routine. Doing so does NOT make the plaintiff a liar and is not a vehicle that a defendant should use to create this inference. A defendant that tries to do so simply wants to detract from the substantive facts and issues. 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

---

Brazil’s Former President Turns Himself In to Police

July 22, 2019 — Mario Sergio Lima - Bloomberg
Brazil’s former President Michel Temer handed himself in to police following a court ruling that’s unlikely to cause upheaval in domestic politics. Temer turned himself in on Thursday afternoon, after federal court judges ordered his detention on charges of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering and conspiracy. The former head of state was initially arrested on March 21 but released four days later. Temer’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The 78-year old’s party, the MDB, issued a note condemning the “unreasonable” decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mario Sergio Lima, Bloomberg

---

Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case

January 28, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
On January 3rd of this year, Chad Abraham reported in the Aspen Daily News that the Ute City building—a condominium on Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado—“lacks proper entryways to apartments and a basement-level nightclub space for both tenants and the disabled.” The owners, Michael Sedoy and Natalia Shvachko, have been sued by the city after refusing “to allow access to an eastside staircase and elevator for other building residents and disabled patrons of a basement restaurant,” according to the Aspen Daily News. “Their stance has forced the other tenants and the disabled to use a westside, alleyway service entrance, according to the city.” Sedoy and Schvachko’s attorney retorts in court documents “that the city approved of a building map and declarations that allow access through the westside entry in the alley.” Furthermore, in another article by Abraham published in the Aspen Daily News on January 25th, he relates that the owners had filed more than “more than 30 noise complaints with the police and the city’s environmental health department about eateries and bars around their home on Restaurant Row. That led to a trial for the Aspen Brewing Co., which a jury acquitted in about 10 minutes last week.” In addition, the couple is being sued by Mountain Home Window Fashions, the Ute City building general contractor. According to the lawsuit as reported by the Daily Aspen News, Mountain Home claims they are owed $12,332. The owners have counter-sued, alleging “that there were defects in Mountain Home Window Fashions’ work” and that one of the employees “made unauthorized charges on Sedoy’s credit card.” Read the full story, January 3rd article ... Read the full story, January 25th article ... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?

April 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Colorado, regulators are questioning the true value of rooftop solar panels, reported the Denver Business Journal: “Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc. (NYSE: XEL), the biggest utility in Colorado, has said it believes Colorado’s current ‘net metering’ policy means the utility is overpaying customers who have rooftop solar power systems.” Currently, “Xcel...credits customers at a rate of 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour of excess power produced.” However, the utility company believes that “the ‘true value’ of the rooftop solar electricity is about half what it’s paying—just 4.6 cents per kilowatt hour.” According to the Denver Business Journal, supporters argue that “Xcel has undervalued the electricity and hasn’t accounted for the systems’ environmental and economic attributes.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---