Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

October 18, 2021 — Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Introduction: Under a no-damage-for-delay clause, the owner is not liable for any monetary damages resulting from delays on the project. In lieu of monetary recovery, the contractor’s remaining remedy is a non-compensatory time extension. These clauses are common at the contractor-subcontractor interface as well. While no-damage-for-delay clauses are enforced in most jurisdictions, some states, either by statute or case law, have limited the enforceability of no-damage-for-delay clauses. Other states have also limited the enforceability of these clauses on state government contracts, and a select few have outlawed them on all projects regardless if they are publicly or privately owned. Additionally, for subcontractors on federal projects, the Miller Act may provide a way to avoid no-damage-for-delay and recover against the general contractor’s payment bond. This article provides an overview of no-damage-for-delay clauses and the exceptions to enforcement of these clauses. However, due to the consequences of a no-damage-for-delay clause, it is important to know the terms of your contract and the law that governs your project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com

Mediation Scheduled for Singer's Construction Defect Claims

February 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A judge has scheduled mediation and trial over the claims of Rihanna that her Beverley Hills home suffers from construction defects. The singer claims that the previous owners, Adriana and Heather Rudomin, did not disclose construction defects which lead to flooding from water leaks in January 2010. The Rudomins did not appear at the February 7th hearing, and the judge fined them $500. They will be required to explain their absence on March 12. The mediation will begin on May 7. The trial has been scheduled for February 24, 2014, and is expected to last three weeks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Jersey’s Governor Puts Construction Firms on Formal Notice of His Focus on Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

May 24, 2018 — Kevin J. O'Connor & Joseph M. Vento - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
We have written quite a bit about the mounting threat to employers, both nationally and locally, of claims of misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees. New Jersey’s new Gov. Phil Murphy signed an executive order last week that establishes a task force on employee misclassification to punish contractors who commit fraud by classifying their employees as independent contractors. In the words of Governor Murphy: “I am signing this order to crack down on unscrupulous contractors who commit 1099 fraud to exploit workers and rob them of family and medical leave and safe workplace protections that the law provides,” Murphy said. “The employer gives themselves an unfair business advantage and this practice is illegal. This is a question of enforcing what is already on the books.” He has vowed that any employer caught misclassifying workers will either be brought into compliance or put out of business. The task force will foster compliance with the law and conduct a comprehensive review of existing practices. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O'Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joseph M. Vento, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Vento may be contacted at jvento@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence

September 23, 2019 — Ashley L. Cooper - SDV Insights
A recent Illinois Appellate Court’s decision in, Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 West Huron Condominium Owners Association, 2019 IL App (1st) 180743 (2019), strengthens Illinois’ precedent favoring construction defects as an occurrence under a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance policy. Acuity also broadens an insurance carrier’s obligation to defend its insured against construction defect allegations. In Acuity, the court determined whether claims for construction defect filed against a subcontractor, triggered a duty to defend under a CGL policy. To make its determination, the court focused on the subcontractor’s scope of work. The court notes that a subcontractor normally contracts for a discrete scope of work on a project. Unlike a general contractor, who has control over or contractual obligations for all aspects of the project, a subcontractor does not have those board responsibilities. The court explained that “[f]rom the eyes of the subcontractor, the ‘project’ is limited to the scope of its own work, and the precise nature of any damage that might occur to something outside of that scope is as unknown or unforeseeable as damage to something entirely outside of the construction project.” Accordingly, the court in Acuity held that when a complaint alleges that a subcontractor’s negligence caused damage to a part of the construction project outside of the subcontractor’s scope of work, the allegations are enough to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend the subcontractor under a CGL policy. The court’s decision in Acuity relied on a similar Illinois Appellate Court decision, Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 956 N.E.2d 524 (Ill. App. 2011). In Larsen, the court reached a similar conclusion where a third-party complaint by a general contractor against a subcontractor alleged that the subcontractor’s improper window caulking caused water intrusion and property damage to other parts of the building. The court in Larsen held that because the complaint alleged not only construction defects, but also damage to other property outside the subcontractor’s scope of work, the insurer had a duty to defend the subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com

Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

July 02, 2018 — Jason Feld & Alex Chazen - Kahana & Feld LLP
California law mandates that any person who conducts roof inspections for a fee can no longer effectuate the actual repairs to the same property. Effective January 1, 2018, Business & Professions Code Section 7197 (Unfair Business Practices) deems it to be an unfair business practice for a home inspector who charges a homeowner a monetary fee for inspecting the property, to perform or offer to perform additional repairs due to the inherent financial interest and conflict raised by identifying alleged defects necessitating repairs. The new law is a result of California AB 1357, which was signed into law on October 5, 2017. The goal of the new law is to disincentivize a roof inspector from creating a report for the sole purpose of obtaining a bid to perform those documented repairs. The roof contractor can perform repairs identified in their report only after a twelve month “cooling period” which provides the homeowner an opportunity to obtain multiple bids/estimates for repairs based upon the inspector’s report. The new law also discourages home inspectors from providing a list of contractors who provide monetary referral fees back to the home inspector upon receiving repair work from the homeowner based exclusively on the home inspection report. The California Business & Professions Code Section 7195(a)(1) defines a “home inspection” as a “non-invasive, physical examination, performed for a fee in connection with the transfer…of the real property…or essential components of the residential dwelling.” Home inspection includes “any consultation regarding the property that is represented to be a home inspection or any confusingly similar term.” Business & Professions Code section 7195(a)(2) further defines a “home inspection” as including energy efficiency and solar. A “home inspection report” is a written report prepared for a fee issued after an inspection. Business & Professions Code section 7195(c). It is noted that a home inspector does not have to be a licensed architect, professional engineer, or general contractor with a Class “B” license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but “it is the duty of a home inspector who is not licensed as a general contractor, structural pest control operator, or architect, or registered as a professional engineer to conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise. Business & Professions Code section 7196. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and Alex Chazen, Kahana & Feld LLP Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanalaw.com Mr. Chazen may be contacted at achazen@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense, Labor & Employment Litigation, and Environmental Law in 2024 Best Law Firms®

November 06, 2023 — Lewis Brisbois
(November 2, 2023) - Lewis Brisbois has been ranked Tier 1 nationally by Best Lawyers for ‘Insurance Law,’ ‘Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants,’ ‘Litigation - Labor and Employment,’ and ‘Environmental Law,’ as well as ranking Tier 1 in an array of practice areas across 25 metro regions in its 2024 edition of Best Law Firms®. In addition to Lewis Brisbois' national ranking, the firm was also ranked Tier 1 in the following regional categories: Akron

Commercial Litigation
Corporate Law
Mergers & Acquisitions Law
Tax Law
Trusts & Estates Law

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

Dispute Waged Over Design of San Francisco Subway Job

July 30, 2019 — Erica Berardi - Engineering News-Record
Contractor Tutor Perini Corp. is clashing with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency over what the firm says are alleged design flaws that may push past December the completion of the already-delayed $1.6-billion Central Subway Project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Erica Berardi, ENR
Ms. Berardi may be contacted at BerardiE@enr.com

Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

April 27, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Markel American Ins. Co. v. Lennar Corp., No. 14-10-00008-CV (Tex. Ct. App. April 19, 2011), insured homebuilder Lennar filed suit against its insurer Markel seeking recovery of costs incurred by Lennar to repair water damage to homes resulting from defective EIFS siding. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Lennar and against Markel. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court reversed. Applying Texas law, the court first held that Lennar failed to satisfy its burden of allocating damages between covered and uncovered. In a prior decision, the court had held that, while the costs incurred by Lennar for the repair of the resulting water damage

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES