FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

June 11, 2014 — Buck Mann – Colorado Construction Litigation
On January 30, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the case of Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Bemas Construction, Inc. and Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2014WL323490. The case addressed a substantial issue of Colorado constitutional law, as well as a variety of procedural issues of potential importance to construction litigation attorneys. Of particular interest is the question of whether the provisions of the 2007 Homeowner Protection Act (“HPA”) are limited in application to contracts between residential homeowners and construction professionals, or whether they have broader application between commercial construction professional parties as well. As discussed below, the Court of Appeals stated that it would not answer the question, and then, separately, implied that the statute might only apply to homeowner transactions – with the resulting exclusion of commercial transactions. However, after its analysis, it left the actual decision of that issue to a future court in a later case. The factual background for the case involved claims of breach of a contract for soils engineering by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (“Terracon”) and negligent excavation work by Bemas Construction, Inc. (“Bemas”). Plaintiff was Taylor Morrison of Colorado (“Taylor Morrison”), the developer and general contractor for a residential subdivision called Homestead Hills. After it constructed many homes, Taylor Morrison began to receive complaints of cracking drywall resulting from foundation movement and it made repairs at significant expense. Taylor Morrison then filed suit against Terracon and Bemas in connection with their respective roles in the original construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Buck Mann, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Mann may be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

---

Unpunished Racist Taunts: A Pennsylvania Harassment Case With No True 'Winner'

December 04, 2023 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
The taunts started in the first days of Andre Pryce’s new job, camouflaged as joking. During the nine months of 2019 spent working as a drill rig hand, mostly in the woods in western Pennsylvania, for a contractor that also performs much construction-related drilling, he said coworkers filled his ears with racist insults. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Contract Basics: Attorney Fee Provisions

November 13, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed the need for attorney fee provisions in your construction contracts in prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, but thought it merited a restatement of the reasons for the inclusion of such fee provisions (and changing of such provisions when presented) here with the second of my construction contract basics posts. Why would you want such a provision? The answer is that without it, or a statute specifically allowing for such fees, a Virginia court will not award your attorney fees without such a provision. Virginia, and a lot of other states, follow the so-called “American Rule” when it comes to attorney fees and costs. In short, that rule states that the parties to litigation pay their own way unless they agree otherwise. While it may seem unfair to make a successful litigant pay for the privilege of being right, that is the rule in Virginia. Throw in the fact that Virginia courts strictly construe construction contracts and voila we have a situation where without a provision in the contract stating that one party or both will be able to collect attorney fees should that contractor or subcontractor prevail, a construction professional that gets sued (whether rightly or wrongly) will be left with a hefty attorney fees bill and no way to recoup those fees through the courts or any other method. 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

---

Building Safety Month Just Around the Corner

May 07, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
For every week in May, the International Code Council (ICC) will spotlight a specific area of building safety. The theme this year is “Resisient Communities Start with Building Codes.” ICC’s first week focus is “Don’t Get Burned – Build to Code,” and the second week the focus changes to “Bounce Back Faster from Disaster – Build to Code.” Next, the ICC will present “Water Safe, Water Smart – Build to Code,” and conclude with “$save Energy – Build to Code.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

July 21, 2018 — TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. GHD Inc.,2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111827 (E.D. Wisc. July 5, 2018), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin had occasion to consider the application of a breach of contract exclusion in a professional liability policy. Crum’s insured, DVO, was sued in connection with its contract to construct a biogas converter mechanism. The underlying suit alleged a sole cause of action; namely, breach of contract based on DVO’s failure to have fulfilled its obligations to design the mechanism to specification. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

---

Know Your Obligations Under Both the Prime Contract and Subcontract

December 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
A recent case out of New Mexico highlights the importance for subcontractors to review their contract with the general and the contract between the general and the owner. In Centex/Worthgroup, LLC v. Worthgroup Architects, L.P, the architect claimed that the limitation of liability clause in the prime contract trumped the provisions of the subcontract. The court disagreed and ruled that the specific provision in the subcontract controlled. In the case, a general contractor was hired to expand and renovate a resort. The general contractor subcontracted with an architect to design a mechanically stabilized earth wall. The prime contract contained a limitation of liability clause that states:

general contractor shall require its design professional Subcontractor(s) to obtain insurance in an amount not less than $3,000,000. Owner agrees that it will limit general contractor’s liability to Owner for any errors or omissions in the design of the Project to whatever sums Owner is able to collect from the above described professional errors and omissions insurance carrier.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Hotel Owner Makes Construction Defect Claim

January 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A lawsuit has been filed over the construction of the GrandStay Hotel & Conference Center in Apple Valley Minnesota. Apple Valley GSRS, LLC, who invested in the hotel, has sued Cole Group Architects and Cornerstone Construction, alleging that the architects design was not to industry standards and that the builder used inferior materials and techniques. The lawsuit makes claim of "significant damage." The hotel hired an engineer who subsequently recommended that all the stucco and the roof should be be replaced. The stucco has shown signs of cracking and crumbling. The hotel states that the roof has problems with leaking. Cornerstone has denied the hotel's claims. They have also counter-sued their subcontractors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Policyholder Can “Stack” the Limits of Each Primary Policy After Asbestos Claim

December 19, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Georgia Court of Appeals judge recently ruled that Scapa Dryer Fabrics was entitled to $17.4 million worth of primary coverage from National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA for claims of injurious exposure to Scapa’s asbestos-containing dryer felts. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., No. A18A1173, 2018 WL 5306693, at *1 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2018). Scapa sought coverage under five National Union policies issued from 1983–1987. The 1983, 1984 and 1985 National Union policies had limits of $1 million per occurrence and $1 million in the aggregate. The liability limits for the 1986 and 1987 renewal policies were amended by endorsement to $7.2 million. Scapa sought to recover the full $17.4 million from all five policies. National Union argued that a “Non-Cumulative Limits of Liability Endorsement” in the 1986 and 1987 policies limited Scapa’s recovery to only $7.2 million. Scapa sued National Union and its sister company, New Hampshire Insurance Company (from which Scapa purchased excess liability coverage), in Georgia state court. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---