Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

January 15, 2019 — Trevor B. Potter - Construction Executive
Owners and contractors frequently treat liquidated damages provisions as an afterthought, but they deserve to be treated as a key deal term. If a contractor breaches a contract by failing to complete the work in a timely manner, the remedy is typically an agreed upon amount or rate of liquidated damages. Liquidated damages provisions seldom get more than a cursory, “back of the napkin” analysis, or worse, parties will simply plug in a number. This practice is dangerous because liquidated damages typically represent the owner’s sole remedy for delay and, more importantly, they are subject to attack and possible invalidation if certain legal standards are not met. The parties to a construction contract should never agree to an amount of liquidated damages without first attempting to forecast and calculate actual, potential damages. Reprinted courtesy of Trevor B. Potter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Feds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant Funding

April 10, 2023 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
Semiconductor chip producers must pay their construction workforce prevailing wages and will be “strongly encouraged” to use project labor agreements if they want a piece of the $39 billion available in federal funding to support fabrication plant construction, expansion or modernization projects, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo says. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

January 28, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- A three-year winning streak for sales of previously owned homes in the U.S. ended in 2014 as some investors stepped out of the market and first-time buyers failed to fill the void. Purchases totaled 4.93 million last year, down 3.1 percent from the 5.09 million houses sold in 2013, figures from the National Association of Realtors showed Friday in Washington. The share of American homebuyers making their first purchase dropped in 2014 to its lowest level in almost three decades, according to the Realtors group. At the same time, employment gains, growing consumer confidence, mortgage rates at historically low levels and government efforts to lower purchasing costs probably will help bolster demand in 2015. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

December 02, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The proper venue for a Miller Act payment bond claim is “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed, regardless of the amount in controversy.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(3)(B). Well, there are a number of federal construction projects that take place outside of the United States. For these projects, where is the correct venue to sue a Miller Act payment bond if there is no US District Court where the project is located? A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida answers this question. In U.S. ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3842290 (S.D.Fla. 2019), a prime contractor was hired by the government to design and construct a solar power system for the US Embassy’s parking garage in Burkina Faso. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform a portion of its scope of work. The subcontractor remained unpaid in excess of $500,000 and instituted a Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety in the Southern District of Florida, Miami division. The surety moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia arguing that the Southern District of Florida was an improper venue. The court agreed and transferred venue. Why? 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

When Your “Private” Project Suddenly Turns into a “Public” Project. Hint: It Doesn’t Necessary Turn on Public Financing or Construction

September 28, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In 1931, during the Great Depression, the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act to help workers on federal construction projects. The Davis-Bacon Act, also known as the federal prevailing wage law, sets minimum wages that must be paid to workers on federal construction projects based on local “prevailing” wages. The law was designed to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local construction projects. California’s current prevailing wage law requires that contractors on state and local public works projects pay their employees the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located, as well as to hire apprentices enrolled in state-approved apprentice programs and to make monetary contributions for apprenticeship training. 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

Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

November 08, 2021 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
The push for COVID-19 vaccine mandates is gaining traction in Canada’s construction industry, with governments, large project sites and major employers setting new inoculation deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

February 03, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case. In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:

an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.

The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.” 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

Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

September 02, 2024 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101953 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2024), the court had occasion to consider the classic additional insured fact pattern of a construction accident. Travelers insured the general contractor and provided a defense to the general contractor as well as its wholly owned subsidiary. Trisura insured the subcontractor, who employed the injured worker. Travelers brought suit, alleging that Trisura is obligated to defend and indemnify the general contractor, its subsidiary, the owner of the building (The City of New York), and the tenant. Trisura denied any obligation to provide coverage due to the application of the “Demolition Exclusion” to the Trisura policy, which provides, in part, that there is no coverage for injury or damage arising out of the demolition of any building or structure which has original ground height in excess of three stories. The accident occurred during the interior demolition of the fifth floor of the building. The court held that the Demolition Exclusion applies only when there is a complete tearing down, razing, or destruction of an entire building. As the accident occurred during interior demolition, the exclusion did not apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES