Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Appellate Division Confirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owners in Action Alleging Labor Law Violations

June 19, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman
In this action brought before the State of New York, Appellate Division, Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle represented Defendant Property Owners in an appeal asserting Labor Law violations. In the underlying case, Plaintiff allegedly was injured while working on a construction project at a property owned by the Defendants, alleging violations of Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6). The Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), arguing that they could not be held liable for such violations due to the exemption set forth in those statutes for owners of one- and two-family dwellings. The Supreme Court of the State of New York granted the motion for summary judgment, and the Plaintiffs appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

Tenants Underwater: Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Privity Requirement for Property Damage Claims Against Contractors

April 25, 2022 — Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation Strategist
In United States Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exch., et al., No. 21A-CT-580, 2022 Ind. App. LEXIS 87 (Automatic Sprinkler), the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Court of Appeals) considered whether there is a privity requirement for property damage claims against contractors. The court imposed a privity requirement. The court also addressed whether a subrogation waiver in a contract with a tenant applied to damage caused by work done outside the contract, at the landlord’s request. The court held that the waiver did not apply. In this case, United States Automatic Sprinkler (Automatic Sprinkler) contracted with a tenant (Contract Tenant) to inspect and test a sprinkler system at a commercial building in Indiana. The contract included a waiver of subrogation provision. The building landlord subsequently hired Automatic Sprinkler to repair a leak in the sprinkler system. After completing the repairs, the system failed and flooded the building, causing significant property damage to several tenancies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

February 08, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Maguire-O’Hara Construction, Inc. v. Cool Roofing Systems, Inc., 2020 WL 6532852 (W.D. Oklahoma 2020) is an interesting case dealing with suretyship law and the subject of whether a Miller Act payment bond surety is bound by a default or default judgment against its prime contractor (bond principal). In this case, a subcontractor sued a prime contractor for breach of contract and the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety for a breach of the payment bond. The prime contractor did not respond to the lawsuit and the subcontractor obtained a default against the contractor. The Miller Act payment bond surety did engage counsel to defend itself in the dispute. Prior to trial, the subcontractor moved in limine to preclude the surety from raising defenses at trial under the subcontract because a default was entered against the prime contractor. The subcontractor argued that the surety should be bound by the default and, therefore, precluded from raising liability defenses under the subcontract. Such a ruling would leave the surety no defenses disputing liability at trial.

[A] suretys’ liability under the Miller Act coincides with that of the general contractor, its principal. Accordingly, a surety [can] plead any defenses available to its principal but [can]not make a defense that could not be made by its principal. Maguire-O’Hara Construction, supra, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

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

MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Citing public safety concerns and the cost of repair, MGM Resorts International is seeking to demolish the unfinished hotel tower. The company has a few hurdles to go through before they start laying the charges to implode the structure. Any plans would have to be approved by not only Clark County officials, but also the district court has an order blocking any activity during litigation between MGM and the general contractor on the project, Perini Building Company.

Architectural Record reports that MGM states it would take “approximately 18 months to conduct test and come up with an approved, permitted design to fix the Harmon.” MGM feels that repairs would then take another two to three years. Perini contends that they could “provide stamped drawings detailing all necessary repairs within three months.” They attribute MGM’s desire to demolish the building as “buyer’s remorse.”

Read the full story…

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

Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Covered

April 28, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found coverage for damage resulting from faulty workmanship. Drury Co. v. Mo. United Sch. Ins. Counsel, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 319 (Mo. Ct. App. March 25, 2014). The School District entered a contract with general contractor, Penzel Construction Company, Inc., to build an addition to a high school. Under the prime contract, the School District was to purchase property insurance, including builder's risk "all-risk" coverage. The policy was to cover the interests of the owner, the contractor, subcontractors and sub-subcontractors in the project. The School District obtained a policy from Missouri United School Insurance Counsel (MUSIC). Exclusions in the all-risk policy included loss due to faulty workmanship or materials, "unless loss by a peril not otherwise excluded ensues and then MUSIC shall be liable only for such ensuing loss." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

October 02, 2023 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
A liquidated-damages clause was not enforced in a recent case before the Georgia Court of Appeals. The clause did not contain standard provisions that would normally allow a trial court to enforce the clause as written. As a result, the trial court looked beyond the contract to determine whether the City satisfied the requirements for enforcement of the liquidated-damages clause. Below are the relevant excerpts. City of Brookhaven v. Multiplex, LLC, A23A0843, 2023 WL 4779591 (Ga. Ct. App. July 27, 2023) Here, the Contract provides for “Liquidated Damages at the rate of $1,000.00 per calendar day” in the last paragraph of the Scope of Work addendum. The Contract lacks, however, any language indicating that the liquidated damages were not intended to be a penalty. See Fuqua Const. Co. v. Pillar Dev., Inc., 293 Ga. App. 462, 466, 667 S.E.2d 633 (2008) (rejecting use of parol evidence where the parties “explicitly agreed” in “unambiguous contract language” that the liquidated damages were not a penalty). Absent such language, the court can look to parol evidence in the record to determine the effect the provision was intended to have. See J.P. Carey Enterprises, 361 Ga. App. at 391-392 (1) (b), 864 S.E.2d 588 (looking to “extrinsic evidence” such as emails, documents, and deposition testimony to determine whether the damages provision at issue was a penalty); see also Gwinnett Clinic, Ltd. v. Boaten, 340 Ga. App. 598, 602-603, 798 S.E.2d 110 (2017) (“Shah’s testimony also suggested that one purpose of the liquidated damages provision was to deter employees from breaching the agreement”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Miller Act Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling

July 11, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to a Miller Act payment bond claim, there is a one-year statute of limitations—“The Miller Act contains a statute of limitations provision that requires actions to ‘be brought no later than one year after the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the claim.’” U.S. f/u/b/o Techniquex Specialty Flooring, Inc., v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2022 WL 169070, *3 (M.D.Penn. 2022) (citing the Miller Act). There is an argument, albeit a difficult one, to support an equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. This would be an argument filed when the one-year statute of limitations expires, but there is reason for missing the statute of limitations caused typically by the overt misleading of the defendant (surety/bond-principal):

“Equitable tolling functions to stop the statute of limitations from running where the claim’s accrual date has passed.” “Equitable tolling is appropriate in three situations: (1) when the defendant has actively misled the plaintiff respecting the facts which comprise the plaintiff’s cause of action; (2) when the plaintiff in some extraordinary way has been prevented from asserting his rights; and (3) when the plaintiff has timely asserted his rights in the wrong forum.” The first ground for equitable tolling“appears to be the same, in all important respects” to equitable estoppel, which “excuses late filing where such tardiness results from active deception on the part of the defendant” and “what courts describe as ‘equitable tolling’ is encompassed by the latter two parts of our Circuit’s doctrine.” The extraordinary circumstances standard may be met “where the defendant misleads the plaintiff, allowing the statutory period to lapse; or when the plaintiff has no reasonable way of discovering the wrong perpetrated against her …” Tehniquex, supra, at *5 (internal citations omitted).