FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Washington Court of Appeals Divisions Clash Over Interpretations of the Statute of Repose

August 07, 2023 — Masaki Yamada & Ryanne Mathisen - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The construction statute of repose under RCW 4.16.310 bars any claims arising from construction, design, or engineering of any improvement upon real property that has not accrued within six years after substantial completion or termination of services, whichever is later, even if the injury has not yet occurred. On June 20, 2023, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals (Div. I) published its decision in Welch v. Air & Liquid Systems severely criticizing and rejecting the statute of repose reasoning contained in Maxwell v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 15 Wn. App. 2d 569, 476 P.3d 645 (2020), a Division Two (Div. II) opinion. More than a mere difference of opinion, the courts in Welch and Maxwell reached different results as to whether claims asserted against Brand Insulations, Inc. were barred by the statute of repose despite involving (i) the same procedural posture, both appeals from summary judgment decisions; (ii) the same facility, Atlantic Richfield Corporation’s (ARCO) petroleum refinery at Cherry Point in Ferndale; (iii) the same activity of installation of asbestos laden insulation on pipes; (iv) the same type of injury, mesothelioma; and (v) application of the same test set forth in Condit v. Lewis Refrigeration Co., 101 Wn.2d 106, 676 P.2d 466 (1984). Reprinted courtesy of Masaki Yamada, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryanne Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Yamada may be contacted at masaki.yamada@acslawyers.com Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Quick Note: Not In Contract With The Owner? Serve A Notice To Owner.

August 13, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A subcontractor or supplier not in direct contract with an owner must serve a Notice to Owner within 45 days of initial furnishing to preserve construction lien rights. Of course, the notice of commencement should be reviewed to determine whether the subcontractor or supplier has construction lien or payment bond rights so that it knows how to best proceed in the event of nonpayment. Serving a Notice to Owner should be done as a matter of course — a standard business operation; no exceptions. 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

---

Waive Not, Want Not: Waivers and Releases on California Construction Projects

February 18, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
California is one of a handful of states (12 to be exact) which have statutory mandated waiver and release forms for construction projects. So here’s what you need to know before you sign one (or two, or three). What are California’s statutory waiver and release forms? California has four statutory waiver and release forms for construction projects. Which form applies depends on two things: (1) whether it is for progress payments or final payment; and (2) whether it is provided before or after you have been paid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

December 22, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Every now and then I come across an opinion that addresses good-to-know legal issues as a corollary of strategic litigation decisions that are questionable and/or creative. An opinion out of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Rock Roofing, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2019 WL 4418918 (D. New Mexico 2019), is such an opinion. In Rock Roofing, an owner hired a contractor to construct apartments. The contractor furnished a payment bond. The contractor, in the performance of its work, hired a roofing subcontractor. A dispute arose under the subcontract and the roofer recorded a construction lien against the project. The contractor, per New Mexico law, obtained a bond to release the roofer’s construction lien from the project (real property). The roofer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the payment bond surety claiming it is entitled to: (1) collect on the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond (?!?) and (2) foreclose its construction lien against the lien release bond furnished per New Mexico law. Count I – Miller Act Payment Bond Claiming the payment bond issued by the contractor is a Miller Act payment bond is a head scratcher. This claim was dismissed with prejudice upon the surety’s motion to dismiss. This was an easy call. 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

---

NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

September 20, 2021 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Frank J. Perch, III - White and Williams LLP
Awarding summary judgment to an insurer under both liability and directors & officers (D&O) coverage parts, a New Jersey trial court reaffirmed the principle that claims of defective workmanship without resulting “property damage” are not covered under a general liability policy, and further dismissed claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that such claims were inherently intentional and do not state a covered “occurrence.” In Velez v. AR Management Company, et al., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1675 (Law Div. Bergen Co. Aug. 10, 2021), owners of a condominium unit rebuilt after a fire sued the condominium association, several association board members, the association’s property management company and the general contractor for the reconstruction work. The owners’ suit alleged faulty workmanship and incomplete repairs. In addition, the owners asserted fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the management company, alleging conflicts of interest and self-dealing between the management company and the general contractor, which had common ownership. In a third-party complaint, the management company sought coverage from the condo association’s liability and D&O insurer. The court dismissed the D&O coverage claim, noting that the management company was not a director or officer or otherwise entitled to insured status for the D&O coverage part. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

US Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Chicago Cubs Stadium Renovation

August 07, 2022 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
The friendly confines of Wrigley Field are not so friendly to wheelchair users, according to federal prosecutors who filed a civil lawsuit July 14 alleging that the Chicago Cubs’ multi-year renovation of the baseball stadium eliminated prime wheelchair seating and did not include other accessible features required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

December 19, 2018 — Tracey W. Pruiett - Smith Currie
Encountering an unexpected site condition is one of the more common risks on a construction project. A “differing site condition”, or it is sometimes called a “changed condition”, is generally understood to be a physical condition that is discovered while performing work and that was not visible or otherwise expected at the time of bidding. Often, the condition could not have been discovered by a reasonable site investigation. Examples of common differing site conditions include: soil with inadequate bearing capacity to support the building being constructed, soil that cannot be reused as structural fill, unanticipated groundwater, quicksand, mud, rock formations, or other artificial subsurface obstructions. Differing site conditions may also occur within the walls or ceilings of a renovation project such as the renovation of a hospital or historic building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracey W. Pruiett, Smith Currie
Ms. Pruiett may be contacted at twpruiett@smithcurrie.com

---

Wyncrest Commons: Commonly Used Progress Payments in Construction Contracts Do Not Render Them Installment Contracts

December 11, 2023 — Benjamin J. Hochberg - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In BIL-JIM Construction Company, Inc. v. Wyncrest Commons, LP, 2023 WL 7276637 (Unpublished, decided November 3, 2023), the New Jersey Appellate Division was asked to consider two issues regarding the interpretation and application of a construction contract that utilized the standard form American Institute of Architects owner/contractor agreement (AIA Document A101-2007) (the “AIA Contract”). Specifically, it was asked to consider: 1) whether a modified AIA Contract was an “installment contract,” whereby each progress payment was subject to its own statute of limitations; and 2) whether and when work had been approved in the context of New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law. While the decision is presently unpublished, it provides guidance as to how form contracts utilizing the same or similar terms will be treated by New Jersey’s courts and is a reminder that the potential for future claims must be considered during contract negotiations. Discussion The primary issue in Wyncrest was whether an AIA Contract was an “installment contract,” and the remaining issues turned on the resolution of this question. Wyncrest, the owner for the project at issue, did not dispute that its contractor, BIL-JIM Construction Company, Inc., had not been fully paid for work that it had performed in connection with a construction project located in Ocean County, New Jersey. Instead, Wyncrest argued that because its AIA Contract with BIL-JIM required that invoices be presented and paid monthly, it constituted an “installment contract.” As such, older payments would be treated as individual transactions and were time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court agreed with Wyncrest’s characterization of the AIA Contract as an “installment contract,” and found that BIL-JIM’s invoices were each subject to their own statute of limitations. However, the trial court disagreed with Wyncrest’s argument that BIL-JIM’s claim for retainage—which was submitted at the end of its work at the project—was time barred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin J. Hochberg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Hochberg may be contacted at bhochberg@pecklaw.com

---