Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

March 22, 2018 — Michael Sams and Amanda Cox – Construction Executive, A publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All Rights Reserved.
Here’s a helpful comparison of and analysis of some important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions). While not intended to be all inclusive, this summary comparison of the contract documents will run as a three-part series. Part I covers Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part II will cover Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

What assurances are there that the owner can pay for the project?

The Contractor should have the right to request and obtain proof that the Owner has funding sufficient to pay for the Work. The provision should also provide that the Contractor may terminate the Contract if the Owner refuses to allow a review of funding documents, or should the Contractor reasonably determine that the Owner does not have sufficient funds to pay for the Work.

Relevant Sections:

A201 2007 Section 2.2.1; 2017 Section 2.2.1-2.2.2 A201

2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs 200: Section 4.2

AIA:

Section 2.2.1 A201 2007 & 2017: Both editions require the Owner, upon Contractor’s written request, to provide, “reasonable evidence that the Owner has made financial arrangements to fulfill the Owner’s obligations under the Contract.” Thereafter, the Contractor may only request such evidence if (1) the Owner fails to make payments; (2) a change in the Work materially changes the Contract Sum; or (3) the Contractor identifies in writing a reasonable concern regarding the Owner’s ability to make payment when due. If the Owner does not comply, the Contractor may stop work.

Additionally, A201 2017 Section 2.2.2 awards costs to the Contractor for demobilization and remobilization.

Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Mr. Sams may be contacted at mpsams@KandSlegal.com Ms. Cox may be contacted at ajcox@KandSlegal.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Copper chromium arsenate helps protect wood against insect damage and fungal growth. Unfortunately, its use leads to arsenic exposure. The safety concerns over CCA for both construction workers and the people who later use the buildings have led to the CCA-treated plywood being banned or restricted in most countries, including the United States, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. New Zealand is not on the list of countries restricting or banning CCA-treated wood. Dr. Merial Watts, a science coordinator for Pesticide Action Network NZ described the product as an “unacceptable public health risk,” and said that “wrapping homes in CCA-treated plywood is a very bad idea.” One construction official, speaking anonymously, noted that “workers have to handle it with gloves and full body suits,” but those guidelines may not be followed. A foreman on a building site said “I know about the treatment but I don’t take many precautions.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Court Strikes Down 'Persuader' Rule

November 23, 2016 — Pam Hunter McFarland – Engineering News-Record
In a victory for construction industry groups, a federal court has permanently blocked a U.S. Dept. of Labor rule requiring attorneys and other outside groups to disclose publicly that they provide advice to employers on how to comply with federal labor laws. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Hunter McFarland, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com

Claim Against Broker Survives Motion to Dismiss

January 25, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's complaint against its broker for failure to secure adequate coverage survived a motion to dismiss. Broecker v. Conklin Prop., LLC, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7399 (Dec. 2, 2020). Conklin Property, LLC purchased real property and entered into a contract with JJC Contracting, Inc. for construction and renovation of the property. The broker, Total Management Corp. (TMC) was retained by Conklin to secure insurance for the construction phase of the renovation project. During the renovation, an employee of JJC was injured at the property and died. The employee's estate then sued Conklin. US Underwriters, the insurer, disclaimed coverage pursuant to an exclusion for bodily injury to contractors and subcontractors and their workers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

November 15, 2017 — Oshrat Carmiel - Bloomberg
The battle over whether an 800-foot condo tower planned for Manhattan’s East Side can be built to its full height took a step forward Wednesday -- with city officials saying both yes, and no. A years-long neighborhood lobbying effort to cap the height of new towers near the East 50s riverfront won an endorsement Wednesday from the planning commission, which agreed to rezone the area in a way that would make skyscraping condo towers impossible to build. But commissioners also voted to allow Sutton 58, the under-construction project that inspired the rezoning push, to be grandfathered in under the new law, and proceed as is. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg

Illinois Town’s Bond Sale Halted Over Fraudulent Hotel Deals

June 26, 2014 — William Selway and Elizabeth Campbell – Bloomberg
A city outside Chicago was blocked from selling bonds after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused it of defrauding investors and steering secret fees to a municipal official. The case against Harvey, Illinois, a struggling city of 25,000 battered by poverty and crime, involves about $14 million in bonds sold from 2008 to 2010 that were to pay for development of a Holiday Inn hotel and conference venue. The SEC said that the city hoodwinked investors by using $1.7 million to pay payroll and other operating expenses, while the hotel stands in disrepair with holes in its facade, exposed studs and a gutted interior. The SEC said Comptroller Joseph Letke, 55, also profited by receiving $269,000 in undisclosed payments while advising the developer of the ill-fated project. Mr. Selway may be contacted at wselway@bloomberg.net; Ms. Campbell may be contacted at ecampbell14@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Selway and Elizabeth Campbell, Bloomberg

It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

April 06, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It was a crazy week last week as the number of coronavirus cases in the United States jumped to 32,783 cases as of Sunday, from 3,680 cases, just a week before. In an attempt to “flatten the curve” and help those impacted by the virus, numerous federal, state, and local orders were issued, including orders requiring that residents “shelter in place.” For businesses impacted by the “shelter in place” orders, which, in California, means virtually every business in the state following Governor Newsom’s state-wide “shelter in place” order, there’s been confusion as to who can and can’t continue to work under the orders including among contractors and project owners. Although things have been changing, sometimes daily, here’s what you need to know about the “shelter in place” orders: The Local “Shelter In Place” Orders On Monday, March 16, 2020, six Bay Area counties, and the City of Berkeley, issued “shelter in place” orders requiring that residents in those counties and city shelter in place except for “Essential Activities,” if performing “Essential Governmental Functions,” or if operating “Essential Businesses.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

April 01, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty and R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In BNSF Railway Company v. Superior Court (Kralovetz) (Filed 3/27/2015, No. B260798), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held a Delaware railroad corporation, with its principal place of business in Texas, was not subject to “general” personal jurisdiction in California, despite California housing 8.1% of the corporation’s total workforce, accounting for 6% of the corporation’s revenue, and containing just under 5% of its total track mileage. Plaintiff, Vicki Kralovetz, filed suit in California Superior Court against defendant, BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”), and others, for wrongful death. Plaintiff contended her husband was exposed to asbestos products manufactured by BNSF in Kansas while working at a dismantling facility owned by BNSF’s predecessor in interest. Plaintiff claimed the exposure caused her husband to contract mesothelioma, which resulted in his death. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at mmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES