FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

October 19, 2017 — Nick Wood, Adam Lang, Noel Griemsmann, & Brianna Long – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Pawn 1st v. City of Phoenix, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a Court of Appeals rule that would have unduly restrained alienation of property in Arizona. The Court of Appeals found that the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment acted beyond its authority when it granted an area variance to a pawn shop where the special circumstances causing a need for the variance existed before the pawn shop purchased the property. Under Arizona law, boards of adjustment cannot grant an area variance where the special circumstances requiring the variance are self-imposed. The Court of Appeals adopted a rule that knowledge of special circumstances at the time of purchase made the special circumstances self-imposed, foreclosing the purchaser’s ability to obtain a variance. This rule would have severely restricted property purchasers’ ability to obtain area variances in Arizona and by extension likely strained property transactions. The underlying case involved a pawn shop that was proposed in southeast Phoenix. After the property purchaser obtained approval for a required use permit (for a pawn shop) and a variance (for a 500 foot residential setback) from the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment, a competing pawn shop filed a special action arguing that the variance was a use variance, not an area variance, beyond the board of adjustment’s authority. Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer attorneys Nick Wood, Adam Lang, Noel Griemsmann and Brianna Long Mr. Wood may be contacted at nwood@swlaw.com Mr. Lang may be contacted at alang@swlaw.com Mr. Noel may be contacted at ngriemsmann@swlaw.com Ms. Brianna may be contacted at bllong@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

November 06, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, housed in the Office of Management and Budget, has issued the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions to be taken over the next several months by federal executive departments and agencies. This report will highlight some of the environmental actions, to be proposed or finalized soon by these agencies. Eventually, the Agenda will be published in the Federal Register. 1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA, of course, has listed by far the largest number of actions. For instance, EPA’s agenda lists 92 separate actions to be taken under its Clean Air Act (CAA) authority. As an example, EPA reports that it will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in May 2019 of its proposals to increase consistency and true transparency in considering the cost benefit of its proposed rules, and review the standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources of greenhouse gas emissions by means of an NPRM to be issued in November 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

May 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the San Francisco Business Times, “Irvine-based SunCal has now bought the same site twice: once in 2005 for $100.5 million and again last week from the Lehman Brothers estate.” Suncal’s original plan to develop the 167-acre Oakland Hills, California project “fell apart after Lehman declared bankruptcy in 2008.” The San Francisco Business Times reported that the “former naval hospital site” has “the potential for more than 900 homes.” The former design included “960 homes, 82,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, and 50 acres of parks and open space.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wildfire Risk Harms California Home Values, San Francisco Fed Study Finds

August 26, 2024 — Laura Curtis - Bloomberg
California’s wildfires are weighing on home prices more than in the past, and insurance availability does little to help in areas considered to be at higher risk, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco study. “Our results suggest that property values have been more adversely impacted in recent years by being close to past wildfires than was the case previously,” economists Leila Bengali, Fernanda Nechio and Stephanie Stewart wrote in a paper published Monday on the Fed bank’s website. While the effect of the proximity may be relatively small now, the economists warned “this pattern may become stronger in years to come if residential construction continues to expand into areas with higher fire risk and if trends in wildfire severity continue,” the study cautioned. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Curtis, Bloomberg

---

The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees

February 07, 2022 — Nicholas B. Brummel, Arezoo Jamshidi & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
On January 21, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two (Los Angeles), certified for publication a 2-1 decision that serves as an important reminder to California attorneys to post jury fees in a timely manner and to use appropriate channels and consult with appellate counsel in seeking appellate relief from contested rulings. In TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Nathaniel Fonnegra, (B303300, Jan. 21, 2022), a construction defect dispute, the trial court set a jury trial at defendant’s request. However, on the day trial was set, defendant waived jury trial. Plaintiff objected and made an oral request for jury trial. The trial court denied the request finding that plaintiff waived its right to a jury trial by failing to timely post jury fees. The matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the court ruled in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed, having failed to seek a writ of mandate, which the appellate court noted “is the proper remedy to secure a jury trial allegedly wrongfully withheld.” Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

February 06, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion to dismiss the insured's claim for business losses due to COVID-19 was granted in part, denied in part. SRL v Zurich Am. Ins Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210058 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2022). Excelsior owned and managed the Westin Excelsior Rome, a luxury hotel in Rome. The hotel suffered business income losses with the onset of the pandemic.While the hotel was not forced to close, its bookings decreased to virtually nothing. The Excelsior's complaint alleged that the COVID-19 virus was present in and around the hotel as multiple guests and at least six employees tested positive for COVID-19. It further alleged that the virus attached to interior property and was in the air. Excelsior was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Zurich. The court agreed there was no direct physical loss because no structure suffered damage. Among the coverages under the policy, however, was a "Cancellation of Bookings" provision. Zurich agreed there was coverage under this provision, but argued that Excelsior had already reached its annual limit for Cancellation of Bookings claims. 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

---

Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations

May 10, 2022 — Joneis M. Phan & Sarah K. Bloom - ConsensusDocs
Federal contractors have faced unprecedented challenges performing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional costs have included delays and inefficiencies, site closures, quarantines, unavailability of supplies and materials, and full shutdowns of subcontractor operations. For contractors performing under fixed price contracts, the cost impact of COVID-19 was likely severe. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) recognizes “epidemics” as a force majeure event that may excuse non-performance. Many federal contracts include some version of the Default clause, which prevents the government from terminating a contractor for default due to impacts of force majeure events that are beyond a contractor’s control, such as an epidemic. See, e.g., FAR 52.249-10. See also Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Dep’t of State, CBCA No. 5683 (Apr. 20. 2020). The Default clause, however, operates as a shield from liability, not a sword authorizing recovery. Contractors are now left wondering whether any avenue exists to recover additional costs incurred after performing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to a likely influx of claims and requests for equitable adjustment due to COVID-19 impacts, the federal government largely took the position that contractors were entitled to extensions of time, but not to additional costs. This article explores the avenues that may be available for contractors to recover costs for performing during a force majeure event that would otherwise be non-compensable. Reprinted courtesy of Joneis M. Phan, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs and Sarah K. Bloom, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs). Mr. Phan may be contacted at jphan@watttieder.com Ms. Bloom may be contacted at sbloom@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---