Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

October 14, 2019 — Ashley L. Cooper & Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Determining the scope of discovery can be challenging, particularly when an insurance bad faith claim is involved. Courts often face the difficult decision of weighing the importance of preserving attorney-client privilege with the public policy rationale of protecting an insured against their insurer’s bad faith behavior. The Supreme Court of South Carolina recently recognized this dilemma by rejecting a hardline approach to bad faith discovery disputes and adopting a case-by-case analysis. The case, In re Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.,1 arose out of a construction defect claim. ContraVest Construction Company (“ContraVest”) constructed a development in South Carolina and was later sued for alleged defective construction. ContraVest sought coverage for the lawsuit from its insurers, including Mount Hawley Insurance Company (“Mount Hawley”), which had provided excess commercial liability insurance to ContraVest during the relevant timeframe. Mount Hawley denied the claim, which prompted ContraVest to sue it for bad faith, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

August 01, 2023 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
In a recent case—United States ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland (“Dickson”)—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently re-examined and defined what work qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. United States ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, No. 21-160, 67 F.4th 182 (4th Cir. April 26, 2023) (slip op.). Unlike private projects, unpaid subcontractors cannot encumber the federal government’s property with mechanics liens. Instead, the Miller Act provides a remedy for subcontractors in the form of a payment bond on all federal public works contracts exceeding $100,000. 40 U.S.C. § 3131(b). In the Dickson case, Claimant Elliot Dickson served as a subcontractor to Forney Enterprises (“Forney”), with whom the Department of Defense (the “DOD”) contracted to renovate several staircases and the fire suppression systems at the Pentagon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Conway & Mrowiec Attorneys LLLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bjw@cmcontractors.com

Is it time for a summer tune-up?

September 20, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday readers are in for a treat. Lance Godard, founder of The Godard Group, has provided marketing and business development solutions to global law firms for nearly 20 years. He has particular expertise developing strategies that allow lawyers to identify client opportunities, communicate their messages, and grow their practices. Lance has been called a “provocative and engaging leader in the legal profession and social media” and was named one of the “20 Twitterers Lawyers should follow on Twitter.” He is the founder of 22 Tweets, live Twitter interviews with practicing lawyers, which provides a forum for lawyers to tell their story using social media. The market appears to be picking up. Clients are getting back to work. New opportunities can’t be far behind. What are you doing to find them? To make sure they show up on your radar? To put yourself in a position to see those opportunities that do present themselves, and to land the work when you pitch for it? Maybe it’s time for a marketing tune-up. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

The Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too Long

July 13, 2017 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
Jan Von Bergen at the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that work on Comcast’s new tower came to a halt this morning when striking members of Local 542 picketed the Comcast tower project and other union trades refused to cross the picket line. However, this show of solidarity (during the afternoon on the Friday before the Fourth of July) is unlikely to last past the long weekend. Why? Because any conduct by Local 542 aimed at encouraging a work stoppage by other union members is illegal and the companies that employ the sympathetic union members are in breach of contract if they do not work on Tuesday. Any actions by Local 542 to encourage members of a different trade unions to honor their picket line is a secondary boycott. The National Labor Relations Act prohibits secondary boycotts. Specifically, the NLRA prohibits a union for inducing employees of an employer not subject to a labor dispute to refuse to work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

November 16, 2023 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
We are thrilled to announce that Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC (“HHMR”) has been recognized in the 2024 Best Law Firm® rankings. Our firm has been placed in Metro Tier 2 in Colorado for Construction Law, a testament to our unwavering commitment to providing top-tier legal services. At HHMR, we pride ourselves on our expertise in construction law and the litigation of construction-related claims. Our team of dedicated attorneys is well-versed and experienced in tort, contract, property, and general casualty litigation. This recognition by Best Lawyers affirms our dedication to serving our clients selflessly and to the best of our ability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

January 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule

July 19, 2021 — Karen Bennett - Lewis Brisbois
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will revise a 2020 final rule clarifying requirements for water quality certification under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 85 Fed. Reg. 42210 (June 2, 2021). CWA Section 401 requires states and tribes to certify that any discharges associated with a federal permit will comply with applicable state or tribal water quality requirements. In an effort to eliminate 401 certification being used as a tool for delaying or imposing conditions unrelated to protecting water quality on federal permits, the 2020 rule established limits on the scope and timeline for review and required any conditions on certification to be water-quality related. State and Tribal governments and environmental groups challenged the rule, arguing it constrained state and tribal decision-making authority by limiting the term “other appropriate requirements of State law” in CWA Section 401(d) to “water quality requirements” and “point source discharges.” With EPA’s decision to revise the rule, many believe these same scope and timing limitations will be targets for change. Clients with experience, positive or negative, under the 2020 rule should consider submitting comments by the August 2, 2021 deadline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES