FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

June 18, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, determined there was no coverage for construction defects under New York or New Jersey law. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Turner Constr. Co., 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3546 (N.Y. App. Div. May 15, 2014). The property owner retained Turner Construction to serve as the general contractor. Turner subcontracted with Permasteelisa North America Corporation to design and build the exterior wall, a "curtain wall," which consisted of granite and glass. A segment of the pipe rail system fell to the street from the eighth floor of the building. An investigation determined that more than 20% of the pipe rail connections surveyed did not conform to the building plans. Additional problems included inconsistencies in the method of rail attachment, bent brackets on the pipe rail system, cracked glass louvers, cracked glass panels, and water infiltration. 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

---

Home Building Up in Kansas City

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
It’s been a good year for home builders in Kansas City, Missouri. In fact, it’s the best year since 2007. The total number of home permits issued through October exceeds the number issued in 2012 by 164, having reached 3,463. Sara Corless, executive vice president of the Builders Association, focused more on the growth, though she noted that some builders were hoping the year’s total would exceed 4,000, which she described as “a psychological victory at a minimum.” The Kansas City metropolitan area lead the state in the number of building permits issued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Jerry Brown recently signed into law a bill requiring the state of California “to assess its properties in the Sacramento area and develop long-term plans for renovating, replacing or selling the most troublesome buildings,” according to SF Gate. Some say the Board of Equalization building, which was built for $80 million and then repaired for $60 million has construction defects, is “jeopardizing the health and safety of public employees.” Current problems include “[f]looding, mold, falling windows and free-falling elevators,” reported SF Gate. Furthermore, recently, “three employees filed a $75 million lawsuit against the state, alleging toxic mold in the building is causing extreme fatigue, skin rashes, persistent flu-like symptoms, respiratory illnesses, frequent headaches, memory lapses and fears of cancer.” “This is a disaster,” Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, who authored the bill regarding assessing state capitol buildings, told SF Gate. “It endangers the health and safety of employees and the public alike. And it is costing state taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

April 27, 2020 — John C. Eichman, Sergio F. Oehninger, Grayson L. Linyard & Leah B. Nommensen - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit in Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, the Texas Supreme Court held that the “policy-language exception” to the eight-corners rule articulated by the federal district court is not a permissible exception under Texas law. See Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, 19-0802, 2020 WL 1313782, at *1 (Tex. Mar. 20, 2020). The eight-corners rule generally provides that Texas courts may only consider the four corners of the petition and the four corners of the applicable insurance policy when determining whether a duty to defend exists. State Farm argued that a “policy-language exception” prevents application of the eight-corners rule unless the insurance policy explicitly requires the insurer to defend “all actions against its insured no matter if the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent,” relying on B. Hall Contracting Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 447 F. Supp. 2d 634, 645 (N.D. Tex. 2006). The Texas Supreme Court rejected the insurer’s argument, citing Texas’ long history of applying the eight-corners rule without regard for the presence or absence of a “groundless-claims” clause. The underlying dispute in Richards concerned whether State Farm must defend its insureds, Janet and Melvin Richards, against claims of negligent failure to supervise and instruct after their 10-year old grandson died in an ATV accident. The Richardses asked State Farm to provide a defense to the lawsuit by their grandson’s mother and, if necessary, to indemnify them against any damages. To support its argument that no coverage under the policy existed, and in turn, it had no duty to defend, State Farm relied on: (1) a police report to prove the location of the accident occurred off the insured property; and (2) a court order detailing the custody arrangement of the deceased child to prove the child was an insured under the policy. The federal district court held that the eight-corners rule did not apply, and thus extrinsic evidence could be considered regarding the duty to defend, because the policy did not contain a statement that the insurer would defend “groundless, false, or fraudulent” claims. In light of the extrinsic police report and extrinsic custody order, the district court granted summary judgment to State Farm. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys John C. Eichman, Sergio F. Oehninger, Grayson L. Linyard and Leah B. Nommensen Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Linyard may be contacted at glinyard@HuntonAK.com Ms. Nommensen may be contacted at leahnommensen@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Janus v. AFSCME

July 18, 2018 — Ryan Foltz – Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME1. By a 5-4 vote, SCOTUS ruled that public employee unions cannot require non-members to pay union dues, even if those employees are benefiting from the services provided by the union. 28 states already had “right-to-work” laws on the books, meaning that unions in those states were already precluded from collecting fees from non-union members. This ruling makes that ban a national standard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Foltz, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Foltz may be contacted at rfoltz@grsm.com

---

Appreciate The Risks You Are Assuming In Your Contract

February 10, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
APPRECIATE THE RISKS YOU ARE ASSUMING IN YOUR CONTRACT. Otherwise, those risks will come back and bite you in the butt. This language is not capitalized for naught. Regardless of the type of contract you are entering into, there are risks you will be assuming. You need to appreciate those risks because there may be insurance you can obtain to cover that risk. For instance, exculpatory provisions (or get-out-of-jail provisions) in contracts are enforceable if they are unambiguous. “Such provisions are deemed to be unambiguous and enforceable when the language unequivocally demonstrates a clear and understandable intention for the defendant to be relieved from liability such that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he or she is contracting away.” Pillay v. Public Storage, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D2744c (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). An example of an exculpatory provision can be found in the public storage rental contract found in Pillay that read: (1) ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY IS STORED BY OCCUPANT AT OCCUPANT’S SOLE RISK. (2) Owner and Owner’s agents . . . will not be responsible for, and Tenant releases Owner and Owner’s agents from any responsibility for, any loss, liability, claim, expense, damage to property . . . including without limitation any Loss arising from the active or passive acts, omission or negligence of Owner or Owner’s agents. 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

---

SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

June 18, 2014 — Tom Schoenberg – Bloomberg
SunTrust Banks Inc. (STI) agreed to pay $968 million to resolve federal and state claims that a unit misrepresented the quality of mortgages the bank originated and deceived homeowners on loans it serviced. The agreement covers loans SunTrust Mortgage made from January 2006 through March 2012 that were backed by the Federal Housing Administration even though they didn’t meet agency requirements, the Justice Department said in a statement today. Atlanta-based SunTrust disclosed the agreement in an October regulatory filing and has already accounted for the payment. “SunTrust’s conduct is a prime example of the widespread underwriting failures that helped bring about the financial crisis,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. “We will continue to hold accountable financial institutions that, in the pursuit of their own financial interests, misuse public funds and cause harm to hardworking Americans.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Schoenberg, Bloomberg
Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net

---