Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

April 17, 2019 — Timothy J. Keough & Rochelle Gumapac - White and Williams LLP
In Stearns v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed whether the six-year statute of repose for improvements to real property applies to long-tail tort claims, such as those caused by exposure to asbestos. Reasoning that the language of § 2B is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, the SJC held that Mass. Gen. Laws. c. 260 § 2B does in fact bar all tort claims arising out of a deficiency or neglect in the design, planning, construction or general administration of an improvement to real property filed after the expiration of the six-year repose period. Additionally, the court affirmed that the time limitations imposed by the statute of repose may not be tolled for any reason six years after either the opening of the improvement for use or the owner taking possession of the improvement for occupation upon substantial completion, whichever may occur first. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy J. Keough, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Reaffirming the Importance of Appeal Deadlines Under the Contract Disputes Act

January 26, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) decision emphasizes the importance of deadlines for appealing a contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”). On July 22, 2016, the COFC granted the consolidation of two naval contract dispute appeals totaling nearly $12.4 million in response to Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba’s (“NTS”) motion to resolve two Requests for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) in the same forum. See Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. United States, No. 15-885C, 2016 WL 4009886, at *5 (Fed. Cl. July 22, 2016). NTS’s motion before the COFC sought to transfer an appeal of a REA before the COFC to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), where another appeal of a REA arising under the same contract was presently on appeal. The COFC rejected NTS’s appeal to transfer the REA to the ASBCA because NTS did not appeal the REA within the 90-day limit under the CDA. Instead, the COFC allowed NTS to transfer the REA before the ASBCA to the COFC because timeliness was not an issue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

July 19, 2021 — Laurie A. Stanziale - ConsensusDocs
Most construction contracts contain insurance provisions setting forth the insurance required of the contractor or other downstream parties. Some provisions are detailed and lengthy while others are short and sweet, but all are of critical importance and should be fully understood by the contractor before signing the contract. Also, every insured should understand not only what the contract requires but more importantly what the actual policy states, as the policy, not the contract, will govern whether or not there is coverage. It is possible that certificates received will match the contractual requirements, but much of what the policy covers is not reflected on a certificate. Lurking behind the certificate is the policy, which is where the actual coverage lies. The endorsements or exclusions to the policy can make the certificates worthless pieces of paper. There are many exclusions that can cancel coverage for the work a contractor may perform. Height exclusions, residential exclusions, EFIS exclusions and many more, focus on the type of work or materials that the contractor is performing or using. One exclusion, however, focuses on who is insured and that exclusion alone can eliminate all coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com

Architect, Engineer, and Design Professional Liens in California: A Different Animal than the Mechanics’ Lien

August 15, 2022 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
Most in the construction industry are familiar with the rules governing California mechanics’ liens. They know that the Preliminary Notice of Civil Code Section 8034 and 8200-8216 is an important foundational prerequisite document and that the deadline to record a mechanics’ lien is generally triggered by events occurring at the end of construction, including completion of the work of improvement and/or the recording of the notice of completion or notice of cessation. Most of these rules are found in California Civil Code sections 8160-8494. While architects, engineers and other design professionals are certainly entitled to pursue a mechanics’ lien at the end of a construction project when they are unpaid for their work, unless they also consider the remedy available to them under the California “design professional lien,” they are missing a powerful opportunity to preserve the right to payment only available to architects, engineers, and design professionals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Five Issues to Consider in Government Contracting (Or Any Contracting!)

September 02, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The appeal of Appeals of – Konecranes Nuclear Equipment & Services, LLC, ASBCA 62797, 2024 WL 2698011 (May 7, 2024) raises interesting, but important, issues that should be considered. In this case, the government (in a supply contract) procured four portal cranes from the claimant. After an initial test of one of the cranes failed, the government refused to accept delivery even after the issue was addressed by the claimant. The government did not accept the manner in which the claimant addressed the issue and would only accept cranes if the claimant employed “an unnecessary alternative solution [that] caused further delay and increased [claimant’s] costs.” On appeal, it was determined the government’s decision to delay delivery based on its demand for the alternative solution was not justified, i.e., constituted a breach of contract. Below are five issues of consideration in government contracting, or, for that matter, any contracting. Issue #1- Patently Ambiguous Specifications The government argued that the specifications were patently ambiguous and because the claimant failed to inquire regarding the ambiguous specifications prior to performance, its interpretation of the ambiguous specifications should govern. The contractor countered that the specifications were unambiguous and it met the specifications. 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

Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

March 29, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
In a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case, the Court was tasked with determining whether the City of Atlanta’s compliance with the Georgia Payment Bond Statutes barred a subcontractor from recovery against it after the general contractor failed to pay and the surety became insolvent. Squared Plumbing Co., LLC (J. Squared), was a subcontractor on a project to clean up sewage spills in approximately 100 dwellings for the City of Atlanta. As required by the contract executed with the City, the general contractor, Scott and Sons Holdings, LLC (Scott and Sons), obtained a $200,000 payment bond from its surety, First Seaford Surety, Inc. (First Seaford). J. Squared sought to collect on the payment bond when Scott and Sons failed to pay J. Squared for the work it performed on the project. However, First Seaford became insolvent. J. Squared subsequently filed a claim against Scott and Sons and the City to recover $140,000 for its work on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

The (Jurisdictional) Rebranding of The CDA’s Sum Certain Requirement

April 15, 2024 — Jordan A. Hutcheson and Stephanie Rolfsness - Watt Tieder
The Contract Disputes Act (the “CDA”), 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 7101 et seq., which has provided the statutory framework for resolution of most contract disputes between the federal government and its contractors since 1978, has recently been the subject of changes in judicial interpretation, despite no corresponding statutory changes. The CDA’s implementing provisions in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), require that contractors submit a claim to the government in the form of written demand to a contracting officer requesting a final decision and seeking the payment of money in a sum certain prior to pursuing resolution via board or court. However, with respect to the sum certain requirement, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in late 2023 determining that this requirement “should not be given the jurisdictional brand” as it has categorically received in the past. Rather, the court concluded that the sum certain requirement is merely an element of a claim for relief under the CDA that a contractor must satisfy to recover. This rebranding does not debase the sum certain requirement, but it does indicate a renewed focus on what constitutes “jurisdictional” in government contracts litigation. Reprinted courtesy of Jordan A. Hutcheson, Watt Tieder and Stephanie Rolfsness, Watt Tieder Ms. Hutcheson may be contacted at jhutcheson@watttieder.com Ms. Rolfsness may be contacted at srolfsness@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
An environmental group has brought a lawsuit alleging that “[f]ederal regulators secretly and illegally revised the license for California’s last nuclear power facility — PG&E’s Diablo Canyon — to mask the aging plant’s vulnerability to earthquakes,” according to SF Gate. Friends of the Earth’s “suit claims that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. last year changed a key element of the plant’s license related to seismic safety without allowing public input as required by law — or even notifying the public at all.” However, spokesman Blair Jones claimed that “Friends of the Earth continues to mischaracterize the facts regarding seismic safety at Diablo Canyon. The facts are Diablo Canyon was built with earthquake safety at the forefront, is a seismically safe facility, and is in compliance with NRC licensing requirements.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES