FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

“Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

June 13, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided the case of Potvin v. Speedway, Inc., a personal injury case subject to the laws of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, environmental rules require the installation of “positive limiting barriers” at gasoline service stations to contain gasoline spills of up to 5 gallons. At a self-service station now owned by Speedway, Inc., the plaintiff, a passenger in a car being serviced, exited the car but tripped on these barriers and was injured. She sued Speedway in state court, and the case was removed to federal court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

March 12, 2015 — Hui-yong Yu – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Seattle’s Columbia Center, the curved black office tower that’s the city’s tallest building, is poised to go on the market as its owners seek to tap into robust demand for U.S. real estate. Beacon Capital Partners, a Boston-based private-equity real estate company, is working with Eastdil Secured LLC on the sale of the 76-story Columbia Center, the second-tallest U.S. building west of Chicago, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Formal marketing is likely to begin in coming months, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the process is private. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hui-yong Yu, Bloomberg
Ms. Yu may be contacted at hyu@bloomberg.net

---

Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

May 11, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I know, you’ve heard this over and over again here at Construction Law Musings: courts in Virginia will interpret a contract strictly and in a manner that gives meaning to its unambiguous terms. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, reinforces this point. The basic facts of the case relevant to this discussion and the Court’s opinion are these. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) hired White Oak Power Constructors (White Oak) to build a natural gas power plant. The contract between ODEC and White Oak provided for liquidated damages for delay and also contained a risk of loss provision making ODEC responsible for certain losses or damages due to property damage at the plant. I highly recommend that you read the facts of the case in full to get the details of the terms of these clauses. Needless to say (or this case wouldn’t be the subject of a construction law blog), the project ran past completion date and liquidated damages were assessed to the tune of more than $50,000,000.00. The delay was alleged to have been caused in substantial part by property damage due to weather, fire, and ice among other causes. 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

---

Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

March 23, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
How are delay damages treated when two subcontractors cause a mutual or concurrent delay to the project? Assume multiple subcontractors concurrently contributed to an impact to the critical path resulting in a delay to the project. The delay caused the prime contractor to: (1) be assessed liquidated damages from the owner and (2) incur extended general conditions. The prime contractor will be looking to the subcontractors for reimbursement for any liquidated damages it is assessed along with its extended general conditions costs. There is really no great case that addresses this point when two (or more) subcontractors mutually or concurrently delay the project. It is also not uncommon, and frankly expected, that a subcontractor will point the finger at another subcontractor for the cause of the delay or that another subcontractor was concurrently delaying the project. The prime contractor should absolutely, without any exception, undertake efforts with a scheduling consultant to allocate the delay caused by subcontractors. Taking an approach that joint and several liability applies between multiple subcontractors and/or not trying to apportion delay because the subcontractors concurrently delayed the critical path at the same time is probably not the best approach. The prime contractor should have an expert render an opinion as to the allocation of the delay period amongst responsible subcontractors that delayed the critical path. Not doing so, in my opinion, is a mistake. 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

---

Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A third-party audit of the construction at the Port of Anchorage has found fault with the design provided by the engineers. In response, PND, the engineering firm involved, has claimed that it was not their design, but faulty construction of it that lead to an interruption in the construction project. Separately, the Office of the Inspector General has called into question how MARAD, the agency which oversaw the port construction, handled the planning and contracts for the project. Control of the project has been taken over by the Municipality of Anchorage, and they have called into question PND’s open cell sheet pile design and PND’s design of the dock infrastructure. Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger reviewed the design, comparing it to a design provided by CH2M Hill, and found that the PND design was inadequate. A contract was subsequently awarded to CH2M Hill. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Brooklyn’s Industry City to Get $1 Billion Modernization

March 12, 2015 — David M. Levitt – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- A late 19th century industrial complex on New York’s Brooklyn waterfront is slated for a $1 billion makeover that aims to transform the property into a modern hub for manufacturing and technology. The owners of Industry City, Atlanta-based Jamestown and its partners, plan to invest about $890 million over the next 12 years, and anticipate tenants will put in about $150 million of their own money, according to a proposal announced Monday. The project will create one of the largest centers for the “innovation economy” in the U.S., and one of New York’s biggest engines of job growth, said Andrew Kimball, chief executive officer of Industry City. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
Mr. Levitt may be contacted at dlevitt@bloomberg.net

---

Best Practices for Installing Networks in New Buildings

August 14, 2023 — Patrick Chown - Construction Executive
A previous article, "How to Install Networks in an Old Building," discussed the various challenges of implementing networking infrastructure in older spaces. The building layout, age of the building and use cases were the major challenges involved. New buildings provide an opportunity to incorporate state-of-the-art networking infrastructure from the ground up. Careful planning and foresight are essential to ensure optimal network performance and avoid future issues. In new buildings, including corporate offices, multifamily residential complexes, hospitals, educational institutions and retail spaces, the potential use cases and users can vary significantly. Each of these spaces comes with its unique networking requirements. Regardless of the specific network applications, there are fundamental frameworks and best practices that can be employed to build a solid network foundation. By following these guidelines and adapting them to the specific needs of your new building, you can ensure a robust and flexible network infrastructure that accommodates ever-evolving technological demands. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Chown, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Colorado Court of Appeals looked at that state’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act in determining if a general contractor could add subcontractors as third-party defendants to a construction defect lawsuit. Shaw Construction, LLC was the general contraction of the Roslyn Court condominium complex, and was sued by the homeowners’ association in a construction defect case. United Builder Services was the drywall subcontractor on the project. MB Roofing had installed roofs, gutters, and downspouts. The certificate of occupancy for the last building was issued on March 10, 2004. The project architect certified completion of all known remaining architectural items in June, 2004.



The HOA filed a claim against the developers of the property on January, 21, 2009. A week later, the HOA amended its complaint to add Shaw, the general contractor. Shaw did not file its answer and third-party complaint until March 29, 2010, sending its notice of claim under the CDARA on March 30.



The subcontractors claimed that the six-year statute of limitations had ended twenty days prior. Shaw claimed that the statute of limitations ran until six years after the architect’s certification, or that the HOA’s suit had tolled all claims.



The trial court granted summary judgment to the subcontractors, determining that “substantial completion occurs ‘when an improvement to real property achieves a degree of completion at which the owner can conveniently utilize the improvement of the purpose it was intended.’”



The appeals court noted that “Shaw correctly points out that the CDARA does not define ‘substantial completion.’” The court argued that Shaw’s interpretation went against the history and intent of the measure. “Historically, a construction professional who received a complaint responded by ‘cross-nam[ing] or add[ing] everybody and anybody who had a part to play in the construction chain.’” The court concluded that the intent of the act was to prevent unnamed subcontractors from being tolled.



The court further rejected Shaw’s reliance on the date of the architect’s certification as the time of “substantial completion,” instead agreeing with the trial court that “the architect’s letter on which Shaw relies certified total completion.”



The appeals court upheld the trial court’s determination that the statute of limitation began to run no later than March 10, 2004 and that Shaw’s complaint of March 29, 2010 was therefore barred. The summary judgment was upheld.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---