FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

June 09, 2016 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
Welcome summer days! Today we have a guest post by Todd Bryant, president and founder of Bryant Surety Bonds. He is a surety bonds expert with years of experience in helping contractors get bonded and start their business. While design professionals generally don’t have to deal with performance bonds directly, they are often at the front lines of advising owners as to various Requests for Proposals submitted by hopeful contractors. In that spirit, be sure to read how the new law changes security requirements. Take it away, Todd! Last year wrapped up with some good news for North Carolina subdivision developers: House Bill 721 confirmed that construction bonds are, in fact, a viable form of performance guarantee. Previous legislation was ambiguous on this point, but the new bill– which took effect last October– sought to clear up the confusion. Although the new rules have been in effect for eight months, there’s been scant coverage of the changes, and what they mean for developers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

September 18, 2023 — Paul A. Briganti & Julia Castanzo - White and Williams LLP
On August 14, 2023, in a “landmark” ruling, a Montana state court held that youth plaintiffs had standing to assert constitutional claims against the State of Montana, its governor and state agencies for “ignoring” the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change. Held v. State of Montana, Cause No. CDV-020-307 (1st Judicial Dist. Ct., Lewis & Clark Cty., Mt.). Agreeing with the plaintiffs, the court concluded that a limitation in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which prohibited the state from considering climate impacts when issuing permits for energy projects, violated the plaintiffs’ right under the state constitution to a “clean and healthful environment.” MEPA, enacted in 1971, states that its purposes include “provid[ing] for the adequate review of state actions in order to ensure that . . . environmental attributes are fully considered by the legislature in enacting laws to fulfill constitutional obligations . . . .” In 2011, the legislature amended the statute to curtail the scope of environmental reviews. Under the so-called MEPA limitation, Montana agencies cannot consider “an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders.” Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(2)(a). In 2023, the legislature added a provision that eliminated equitable remedies (i.e., the ability to “vacate, void, or delay a lease, permit, license, certificate, authorization, or other entitlement or authority”) for litigants who “claim that [an] environmental review is inadequate based in whole or in part upon greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to the climate in Montana or beyond Montana’s borders . . . .” Id. § 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii). Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP and Julia Castanzo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Castanzo may be contacted at castanzoj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

October 26, 2017 — Michael C. Parme – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Dryden Oaks, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority et al.(D068161, filed 9/26/17, publication order 10/19/17), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that the County of San Diego (County) and the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (Authority) were entitled to summary judgment on a developer’s “disguised taking” theory of inverse condemnation. In 2001, the developer purchased two large lots (designated Lot 24 and Lot 25) adjacent to the end of a runway at the Palomar Airport in Carlsbad. Plaintiff obtained the necessary permits from the City of Carlsbad and successfully completed construction of an industrial building on Lot 24 in 2005. However, the plaintiff never began development of Lot 25 and the building permit for the property expired in 2012. The developer was then unable to renew the building permit because the Authority had adopted the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in the interim period, which reclassified the Lots as part of a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The developer received a letter explaining that “despite the earlier approval the proposed development was no longer feasible because the ALUCP was more restrictive than the prior compatibility plan and the application's proposed use of ‘research and development’ was not permissible.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com

---

OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

OSHA announced that its current rules on fall protection for residential construction will remain in place until September 15, 2012. The current measures became effective in June 2011. Under the new rules, falls must be prevented by fall protection measures unless the measures can be shown to be unfeasible or even hazardous.



Under the extension of the temporary enforcement measures, contractors who ask for compliance assistance with OSHA are given top priority and penalties can be reduced. OSHA has conducted more than 1,000 outreach sessions on the new rules.

Read the full story…

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

---

Don’t Forget to Mediate the Small Stuff

August 02, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I talked mediation here at Construction Law Musings. Those that read regularly (thanks) have likely missed my musings on the topic. Those who read this construction blog regularly also know that I am both a Virginia Supreme Court certified general district court mediator and a huge advocate of mediation as a method to resolve construction disputes. While many of us think of mediation as a method to resolve the major disputes or litigation that occasionally rear their heads in the course of running a construction law practice or construction business, my experience as both a construction attorney and a mediator has taught me something: mediation works for all sizes of cases. As an advocate for my construction clients, I know that proper trial preparation requires the same diligence and attention to detail for a smaller case as it does for a larger case. While a smaller case in the Virginia general district court may not have the depositions, written discovery and motions practice that a Virginia circuit court case may have, it still requires witness preparation, document processing and review and many of the other aspects of a larger case. While construction litigation is never a money maker in the best of circumstances, in the smaller cases the attorney fees often total a larger percentage of the total potential recovery. For this reason, the small cases are almost better suited for a quick mediated resolution than the larger ones. The larger cases may cost more to prosecute or defend, but the fees are less likely to eat up such a large percentage of any recovery. 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

---

Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

February 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to KMOV News, Raineri Construction Company in Missouri filed suit against the Local Carpenters’ District Council claiming employees had been “stalked and threatened” by the union. However, the Carpenters Union “denies the allegations” and said “it has the right to protest against a company that doesn’t always meet the union standards for pay and benefits.” Tony Raineri, one of the construction company’s executives, said to KMOV News: “For me it wasn’t such a big deal until they started making threats of bodily harm, started following me and my wife to our home, started following my employees to their homes.” KMOV News reported that a “union representative told News 4’s Craig Cheatham that no one acting on behalf of the Carpenters Union ever threatened, harassed or stalked Raineri, his employees or their clients.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Texas “your work” exclusion

January 06, 2012 — CDCoverage.com

In American Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L.C., No. 10-20499 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), claimant Ergon hired insured Cat Tech to perform service on a reactor at Ergon’s refinery. During a start-up of the reactor after Cat Tech had completed its work, the reactor suffered damage. Cat Tech performed additional service and repairs. However, again upon start-up of the reactor, it suffered additional damage. Ergon hired another contractor to repair the reactor. Ergon initiated arbitration proceedings against Cat Tech. Cat Tech’s CGL insurer American Home defended Cat Tech against the Ergon arbitration under a reservation of rights.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

September 20, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
My colleagues Rina Carmel, Karin Aldama and I authored an article entitled, "To Settle or Not to Settle? Bad-Faith Implications in Resolving Underlying Actions." The article appears in the current edition of Coverage, published by the Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee of the ABA. The article is here. The article addresses the obstacles faced when settling liability claims. The insurer and insured may have fundamental disagreements on whether to settle or how much to pay in settlement. Should the insured contribute to the settlement? Whether the insurer should seek from the policyholder, or the policyholder offers to make, a settlement contribution presents thorny issues, including whether such a contribution can convert an excess demand into a demand within limits—which, in turn, affects the standard for evaluating the insurer’s response to the third-party demand. On the other hand, the policy holder may not want to settle and set a bad precedent. 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

---