Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

McDermott International and BP Team Arbitrate $535M LNG Site Dispute

April 02, 2024 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
BP and Kosmos Energy are seeking “maximum recoverable damages” of about $535 million in binding arbitration with contractor McDermott International over a claim that it failed to meet contract obligations on subsea pipeline installation for an estimated $4.8 billion liquefied natural gas project off Africa. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, 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

6,500 Bridges in Ohio Allegedly Functionally Obsolete or Structurally Deficient

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Portsmouth Daily Times reported that U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) released a report that declared “6,500 bridges in Ohio are either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient as defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).” According to the Portsmouth Daily Times, the “FHWA defines Functionally Obsolete as a bridge that is no longer by design functionally adequate for its task” and “Structurally Deficient as a bridge that has one or more structural defects that require attention.” Brown’s solution to the issue is to pass a long-term transportation bill. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Indemnity After Insured Settles Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims

June 09, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Illinois law, the federal district court ruled that there was no coverage for the insured's settlement of claims based upon breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metro North Condo. Ass'n, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43452 (E.D. Ill. March 31, 2016). Metro North sued the developer of its condominium and a number of its contractors and subcontractors for defective construction that caused various problems, including water infiltration. One subcontractor, CSC, was to provide window and glazing services. After a rainstorm, water infiltrated the project due to CSC's work. Metro North claimed that CSC was liable for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. 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

A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)

November 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed teaming agreements in this past here at Construction Law Musings. These agreements are most typically where one of two entities meets a contracting requirement but may not have the capacity to fulfill a contract on its own so brings in another entity to assist. However, these agreements are contracts and are treated as such here in Virginia with all of the law of contracts behind them. One illustrative case occurred here in Virginia and was decided by the Virginia Supreme Court. That case is CGI Fed. Inc. v. FCi Fed. Inc. While this is not strictly a “construction” case, it helps lay out some of the pitfalls of teaming agreements in general. In this case, the parties entered into a fairly typical small business (FCI) Big Business (CGI) teaming arrangement for the processing of visas for the State Department. The parties negotiated the workshare percentage (read payment percentage) should FCI get the work and the teaming agreement set out a framework for the negotiation of a subcontract between FCI, the proposed general contractor, and CGI, the proposed subcontractor. After a while working together, FCI submitted a proposal to the State Department and as part of the negotiations of this proposal, the work percentage for CGI was lowered in exchange for some management positions for CGI relative to the work by amendment to the original teaming agreement. However, one day later FCI submitted a proposal to the State Department that not only didn’t include the management positions, but further lowered CGI’s workshare. 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

Damages in First Trial Establishing Liability of Tortfeasor Binding in Bad Faith Trial Against Insurer

October 22, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court considered whether, in a second trial for bad faith, the insured was required to again prove her damages, instead of relying on the jury's damage determination in the first trial where the tortfeasor's liability was established. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 2014 Fla. Ct. App. LEXIS 14362 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2014). The insured was injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of the underinsured driver. Geico paid the insured the $10,000 policy limit under her policy. The insured's mother also had uninsured/underinsured coverage with Geico, with policy limits of $100,000. When the insured demanded the $100,000 policy limits from her mother's policy, Geico offered $1,000. Later, Geico offered $5,000, but returned to the $1,000 offer after the insured refused to settle. When the insured reduced her demand to $22,500, Geico did not respond. The insured sued and the case went to trial. The jury awarded $10,000 for past pain and suffering, and $350,000 for future pain and suffering. The verdict set the insured's total damages at $469,247. Geico did not file a motion for new trial nor did it appeal. Judgment was entered in favor of the insured, but was limited to the $100,000 UM policy limits. 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

Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

March 09, 2020 — Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

June 10, 2019 — Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

“Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees

March 30, 2020 — Sidney Lewis & Alex Glaser, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
COVID-19 has already taken a toll on construction projects across the nation. Construction industry participants, including general contractors, now face risks and challenges that are exceedingly difficult to anticipate and plan for. The spread of this virus has and will continue to create new labor force issues and amplify existing ones. On March 18, 2020, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6021, the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act,” which, contains provisions related to mandatory paid leave for employers with fewer than 500 employees. This legislation and the substantial obligations it imposes apply to the overwhelming number of general contractors in the nation—those with less than 500 full-time employees! The bill mandates up to 80 hours of “emergency paid leave” related to COVID-19, and not just for those who contract the illness. However, contractors with less than 50 employees may seek exemption. Reprinted courtesy of Sidney Lewis, Jones Walker LLP and Alex Glaser, Jones Walker LLP Mr. Lewis may be contacted at slewis@joneswalker.com Mr. Glaser may be contacted at aglaser@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES