Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

June 26, 2014 — John Gittelsohn and Alan Ohnsman – Bloomberg
Ben Stapleton frames the shot with his hands like a movie director, sharing his vision of a junkyard he’s trying to sell for $3.5 million. He sees artist workspaces, retail shops and apartments with Los Angeles skyline views, steps from a riverfront oasis. Right now the river of his dreams is the concrete flood channel where an 18-wheeler chased Arnold Schwarzenegger on a Harley in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” one of the movies that used the 200-foot-wide (60-meter) ditch to depict industrial bleakness. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan to return the Los Angeles River to a more natural state would cost $1 billion and has speculators circling even before the funding’s in place. “The private money is already moving,” said Stapleton, a vice president at commercial real-estate brokerage Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. (JLL) “They’re looking for opportunities. It’s the private money that’s going to make the vision happen.” Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Ohnsman may be contacted at aohnsman@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn and Alan Ohnsman, Bloomberg

Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

December 09, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer denied the insured contractor's claim seeking a defense for faulty workmanship based upon the ongoing operations exclusion. PJR Constr. of N.J. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D. N. J. July 31, 2019). PJR Construction was the general contractor to build a swim club and pavilion building for Cambridge Real Property, LLC. PJR began construction on May 29, 2012, and was to complete the construction by March 1, 2013. The project took much longer than anticipated. PJR was denied access to the site on November 13, 2014. Cambridge contended PJR tolerated shoddy workmanship and breached the terms of the contract documents. Cambridge estimated that the project was between 55% and 74.3% complete. PJR and Cambridge went to arbitration. PJR sought a defense from the insurers. Coverage was denied based upon exclusions j (5) and j (6). Exclusion j (5), which the court referred to as the "Ongoing Operations Exclusion," provided the policy did not apply to,

Property Damage to . . . [t]hat particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the property damage arises out of those operations.

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

Case Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment Granted for BWB&O’s Client in Wrongful Death Case!

November 18, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to San Diego Partner JohnPaul Salem on his recent MSJ victory in a wrongful death case! Plaintiffs, the family of a pedestrian who was struck and killed by a train at a San Diego trolley station when he walked onto the tracks while warning lights and bells were active, filed suit for (i) dangerous condition of public property; and (ii) negligence arising out of the accident. Plaintiffs alleged BWB&O’s Client had created a dangerous condition and failed to warn of the alleged danger. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Taking Advantage of New Tax Credits and Prevailing Wage Bonuses Under the Inflation Reduction Act for Clean Energy Construction Projects

September 02, 2024 — Abby Bello Salinas, Jennifer Harris & Sahara Mokhtari - ConsensusDocs
Introduction: IRA Boosts U.S. Construction Industry On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) into law.[1] The IRA marked a legislative milestone for clean energy in the United States in part by providing funding mechanisms for clean energy infrastructure projects. This new emphasis on green projects has already created a surge of opportunities across the construction industry—the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) estimates that IRA clean energy projects will create over 1.5 million jobs over the next decade.[2] But what can contractors do to take advantage of IRA incentives to reduce costs, build a reliable workforce, and gain a competitive advantage in the new infrastructure landscape created by the ever-increasing number of IRA-related projects? The IRS Final Rule, 89 FR 53184 (29 CFR 1), effective August 26, 2024, provides some guidance by outlining the increased credits and deductions available to taxpayers that satisfy the criteria under the IRA, such as prevailing wage and registered apprenticeship requirements. Reprinted courtesy of Abby Bello Salinas, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Sahara Mokhtari, Georgetown Law Class of 2025 Ms. Salinas may be contacted at asalinas@pecklaw.com Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

September 03, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Jessica M. Lassere Ryland - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On August 27, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal weighed in on whether prevailing wages are required for public contracts in situations where work is performed in furtherance of the project but at a permanent offsite manufacturing facility that is not exclusively dedicated to the project. In Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 401 v. John C. Duncan and Russ Will Mechanical, the project at issue was for a community college district where Russ Will was the HVAC subcontractor. The contract documents required contractors to pay prevailing wages but they did not limit where or how Russ Will would fabricate sheet metal required for the job. Russ Will used its existing fabrication facility to form the sheet metal. An employee of Russ Will filed a complaint with the DIR alleging he should have been paid prevailing wages for work related to the project. The worker fabricated sheet metal for the project but at Russ Will’s Hayward facility, not at the site. The DIR issued a coverage determination in which it concluded that Russ Will was required to pay prevailing wages for the offsite fabrication work associated with the project. The DIR's determination turned on whether Russ Will was exempt from the prevailing wage law as a material supplier. To qualify for the material supplier exemption, the employer must sell supplies to the general public and its fabrication or manufacturing facility must not be established for the particular public works contract or be located at the site of the public work. Following the DIR determination, Rush Will filed an administrative appeal. The department reversed its initial coverage determination, concluding that the offsite fabrication performed by Russ Will was not subject to the prevailing wage law. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month

March 05, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- U.K. construction growth unexpectedly accelerated for a second month in February, led by a strengthening in homebuilding. Markit Economics said its Purchasing Managers’ Index rose to 60.1, the highest in four months, from 59.1 in January. It fell to a 17-month low of 57.6 in December. Economists forecast the gauge would slip to 59 in February, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News
Scott Hamilton may be contacted at shamilton8@bloomberg.net

Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

April 28, 2014 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”). In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Quick Checklist for Subcontractors

January 26, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After the last two weeks’ analyses of a couple of big construction decisions that came out recently, I thought I’d keep this week’s post practical and short for those that are not construction lawyers. So without further ado, here is a short checklist of the top things (aside from calling their local experienced construction attorney) a construction subcontractor should do or look for when reviewing a construction contract from a general contractor (and for a couple of these that a general contractor can look for in its prime contract).

ALWAYS get a copy of the Prime Contract between the Owner and the General Contractor. This contract will contain terms that will “flow down” to you through the incorporation clause that almost every subcontract contains. You can’t do much to change these terms, but you will need to know them as the job progresses.
READ every provision of the subcontract. I know this sounds simple, but not all subcontracts hide the red flags in the same places. Remember the details of a subcontract can sink you later if you aren’t prepared.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES