Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Federal Court Strikes Down 'Persuader' Rule

November 23, 2016 — Pam Hunter McFarland – Engineering News-Record
In a victory for construction industry groups, a federal court has permanently blocked a U.S. Dept. of Labor rule requiring attorneys and other outside groups to disclose publicly that they provide advice to employers on how to comply with federal labor laws. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Hunter McFarland, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com

Be Sure to Bring Up Any Mechanic’s Lien Defenses Early and Often

November 27, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As those of you who regularly read Musings are aware, mechanic’s liens are a big part of my law practice and a big issue here at this construction law blog. I’ve discussed the picky requirements of the mechanic’s lien statutes in Virginia and how the 90 and 150-day rules are strictly enforced. However, a recent case out of the City of Norfolk Virginia Circuit Court cautions that while failure to meet these strict requirements may invalidate a lien, it only does so if the owner or general contractor seeking to invalidate the lien argues the invalidity and/or presents evidence of that invalidity either pretrial or during trial. In Premier Restoration LLC v. Barnes, the Court considered the following facts. The defendant homeowners had a house fire and the resulting damage was the subject of an insurance claim that was paid and checks sent to the homeowners. Premier filed a mechanic’s lien in response to Barnes’s failure to pay for Premier’s restoration construction services after Barnes’s home was destroyed by fire. Premier seeks a decree to enforce the lien, asking the court to order the sale of Barnes’s property to recover its damages or, alternatively, a judgment in its favor. With the Complaint seeking enforcement of the lien and damages for breach of contract, and this is a key point, Premier provided a copy of the mechanic’s lien along with the affidavit that is part of the statutory form swearing that the Owner was justly indebted to Premiere. The homeowners filed a counterclaim for unfinished work, including unfinished punch list work. After a trial during which no evidence regarding either the timeliness of the lien recording or whether any of the work sought to be encompassed in the lien was performed outside of the statutory 150-day window was presented by either side, the defendants filed a post-trial motion seeking to invalidate the lien as including sums for work outside of the 150-day window. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

How Long does a Florida Condo Association Have to File a Construction Defect Claim?

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a post on Orlando Sentinel’s HOA & Condo Blog, sponsored by the firm Becker & Poliakoff, generally a Condominium Association has “4 years from turnover of control of the Condominium Association from the developer” to file a lawsuit for construction defects. However, the association may have additional time to file. If defects from the original construction were discovered after the 4 years have lapsed, “[a] condominium association may still pursue a claim for latent defects,” which is one that “is hidden, and not discovered despite the exercise of due diligence, for the period of 4 years from turnover.” The Statute of Repose in Florida is “10 years from the date the building received its original Certificate of Occupancy.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

September 07, 2017 — Sanjo S. Shatley - Florida Construction Law News
Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of retroactive application of a construction subcontract on the basis of a merger clause in Don Facciobene, Inc. v. Hough Roofing, Inc.[1] In the case, in late 2010, Don Facciobene, Inc. (“DFI”), a licensed general contractor, contracted with Digiacinto Holdings, LLC, an owner of a home built in 1905 in Melbourne, Florida, known as the Nannie Lee House or the Strawberry Mansion, to perform various renovations in preparation for a restaurant to be opened on the premises. One of the renovations included a new roof. DFI subcontracted the roofing work to Hough Roofing, Inc. (“HRI”), a licensed roofing subcontractor. In mid-March 2011, HRI submitted an estimate and proposed statement of work to DFI. DFI’s project manager signed HRI’s proposal on April 5, 2011, as well as an additional expanded proposal six days later. According to the proposals, payment was due on completion. HRI began work on the roof on April 15, 2011, without a signed subcontract. However, DFI and HRI ultimately executed a subcontract on June 8, 2011, even though HRI had mostly finished its work by the end of May. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo S. Shatley, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com

Project-Specific Commercial General Liability Insurance

May 13, 2019 — Jeremiah M. Welch - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Many markets which provide insurance for construction projects include an endorsement providing coverage for “repair work” as part of their standard policy. “Repair work” endorsements are largely misunderstood by policyholders and the insurance broker community. They are typically assumed to be coverage enhancements, but many provide no additional coverage and actually risk reduction of coverage otherwise provided as part of the products-completed operations (“PCO”) extensions also found in these project-specific policies. This article is designed to help the reader understand these endorsements so that better decisions can be made at the point of purchase. Intent The common feature of these endorsements is a grant of coverage for bodily injury and property damage resulting from “repair work” for a specified period of time. Most endorsements define “repair work” to mean the repair of completed work performed pursuant to a contract or warranty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Welch may be contacted at jmw@sdvlaw.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

Scientists found a way to make Cement Greener

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Futurity, scientists say by “paying attention to concrete’s atomic structure…they could make it better and more environmentally friendly.” Cement currently is “the third-largest source of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere.” Materials scientist Rouzbeh Shahsavari stated that “[t]he heart of concrete is C-S-H—that’s calcium, silicate, and hydrate (water). There are impurities, but C-S-H is the key binder that holds everything together, so that’s what we focused on.” The team spent a year in research and “looked at defects in about 150 mixtures of C-S-H to see how the molecules lined up and how their regimentation or randomness affected the product’s strength and ductility.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord

October 17, 2022 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In J&J Fish on Ctr. Str., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-644-bhl, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16361, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (District Court) recognized that “[t]here will be no further fish fries on Center Street until someone pays to repair the collapsed floor at J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. (J&J Fish).” The contenders were: 1) J&J Fish; 2) its’ insurer, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Insurer); and 3) J&J Fish’s landlord, Vision Land, LLC (Vision). Recognizing Insurer’s right to subrogate against Vision based on the terms of the parties’ lease, the District Court held Insurer owed J&J Fish coverage for the losses it sustained, but that Insurer could subrogate against Vision for anything it had to pay J&J Fish. In J&J Fish, Vision and J&J Fish signed a lease (Lease) for a building (the Building) located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Lease required Vision to “purchase and keep in full force and effect on the building(s) . . . insurance against fire and such other risks as may be included in all-risks policies . . .” Vision, however, never obtained any insurance on the Building. Pursuant to the Lease, Vision also agreed to “maintain and repair the structure including the slab floor and exterior walls of the Premises.” With respect to J&J Fish, the Lease required J&J Fish to maintain “Physical Damage insurance, including but not limited to fire . . . and all other risks of direct physical loss as insured . . . for the full replacement cost of all additions, improvements (including leasehold improvements) and alterations to the Premises.” J&J Fish purchased a commercial property and casualty insurance policy (the Policy) from Insurer. The Policy covered “additions, improvements . . . and alterations” as the Lease required. In addition, it insured the Building itself against “collapse,” subject to certain exceptions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES