Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Public Housing Takes Priority in Biden Spending Bill

November 15, 2021 — Kriston Capps - Bloomberg
The White House narrowed its housing agenda with the latest compromise version of President Joe Biden’s social spending bill, lowering funding levels by half while also shifting the bill’s priorities. Representative Maxine Waters and her allies had pushed for $327 billion for rental assistance, affordable housing and other progressive priorities in the reconciliation bill. The most recent White House framework for the Build Back Better Act shows that this figure has been cut in half: The new target is $150 billion, with funding for many of the same programs intact. As a result, the balance of the housing investment has shifted from rental aid to public housing, according to the text of the bill. Funds to repair, replace or build public housing amount to $65 billion, down from a proposed $80 billion yet close to half the total housing package. The White House describes the housing bill as “the single largest and most comprehensive investment in affordable housing in history.” A fact sheet states that it will build or preserve more than 1 million affordable apartments and homes. Biden’s bill also includes a soft repeal of the Faircloth Amendment, a provision that has banned any net new federal public housing units since 1999. Yet the latest version of the bill will not go as far to fulfill Biden’s promise to expand housing vouchers as a federal entitlement program. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

Pennsylvania “occurrence”

December 30, 2013 — Scott Patterson — CDCoverage
In Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2013 WL 6237312 (Pa. Super. 2013), insured Indalex was sued in multiple underlying actions, filed in states other than Pennsylvania, alleging that Indalex defectively designed or manufactured windows and doors resulting in leaks causing damage beyond the Indalex product, including mold, wall cracks, and personal injuries. The complaints included strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and breach of contract causes of action. After Indalex’s primary CGL policies exhausted, Indalex filed a declaratory judgment action against its umbrella insurer National Union. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson
Scott Patterson can be contacted at cdcoverage.com

Preservationists Want to Save Penn Station. Yes, That Penn Station.

December 20, 2021 — Kriston Capps - Bloomberg
In November, as one of her first major acts since taking office, New York Governor Kathy Hochul pared back development plans for New York City’s Pennsylvania Station set in place by her predecessor, disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo. The Cuomo plan would have greatly expanded Penn Station and upscaled the neighborhood; Hochul’s vision narrows the scope of work, but it still stands to dramatically transform the subterranean transportation hub, which has been the focus of various unrealized redesign dreams for decades. On Dec. 8, critics and supporters sounded off on the Penn Station scheme in a public hearing. More than 200 people registered to weigh in on how the 10 new skyscrapers coming to the area (shrunk down a bit under Hochul) would affect the scale and character of the community, and the historic buildings that would need to be razed to make way for new development. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

September 26, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Is the item or event you are claiming as an unforeseeable, excusable delay really unforeseeable? This is not a trick question. Just because your construction contract identifies items or events that constitute unforeseeable, excusable delay does not mean those items can be used as a blanket excuse or crutch for the contractor. That would be unfair. For instance, it is not uncommon for a construction contract to list as unforeseeable, excusable delay the following events or items: “(i) acts of God or of the public enemy, (ii) act of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (iii) acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government, (iv) fires, (v) floods, (vi) epidemics, (vii) quarantine restrictions, (viii) strikes, (ix) freight embargoes, (x) unusually severe weather, or (xi) delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the subcontractors or suppliers.” See, e.g., F.A.R. 52.249-10(b)(1). While the itemization of excusable delay may be worded differently, the point is there may be a listing as to what items or events constitute excusable delay. An excusable delay would justify additional time and, potentially, compensation to the contractor. 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

The Small Stuff: Small Claims Court and Limited Civil Court Jurisdictional Limits

June 10, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Sometimes the small stuff matters. And when it comes to legal disputes this can pose a problem for clients as well as their attorneys because litigation and arbitration, the two most frequently utilized venues to resolve legal disputes in the United States, can be and usually are expensive. Data on the cost of civil litigation is sparse. According to a 2013 survey of trial lawyers conducted by the National Center of State Courts, the median cost of litigating a contract dispute – which is the category that most construction disputes would fall under – is $90,575. And this is in 2013 dollars. With inflation, that number rises to nearly $120,000 in 2023, and based upon our experience litigating and arbitrating complex (and even not so complex) construction disputes, it can be many multiples over that. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Where-Forum Art Thou? Is the Chosen Forum Akin to No Forum at All?

May 30, 2022 — William Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
Many courts enforce forum selection clauses in contracts between parties. In W. Bay Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. Sika Corp., No. 3D21-1834, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1637 (W. Bay Plaza), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Court of Appeal) answered the question of whether a mandatory forum selection clause in a manufacturer’s warranty was enforceable as to a condominium association, who was a non-signatory. The trial court enforced the forum selection clause – calling for litigation in New Jersey rather than Florida – and the Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling. As stated in W. Bay Plaza, in late 2013 and early 2014, West Bay Plaza Condominium Association (W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n) contracted with Built Right Installers International Corporation, R.J. Miranda Consultants, Inc. and UCI Engineering Inc. (collectively, the Construction Defendants) to have repairs done to the exterior of the property. In 2016, Sika Corporation (Sika), a New Jersey corporation, gave a five-year warranty to W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n for three sealant products used to repair the garage at the property. In 2019, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n sued the Construction Defendants for breach of contract and professional negligence. Subsequently, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n amended its complaint and filed a claim against Sika, alleging that Sika breached its warranty because its products failed to provide a watertight barrier. Sika filed a motion to dismiss the action, alleging that Florida was an improper venue because its’ warranty contained a mandatory forum selection clause. W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n argued that it was not bound by the forum selection clause because it was a non-signatory to the warranty and, even if it was bound by the clause, there were compelling reasons not to enforce it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

March 14, 2018 — Shannon M. Warren – The Subrogation Strategist
On January 23, 2018, the Northern District of Indiana issued a decision that clarifies what constitutes spoliation of evidence under Indiana law. In Arcelormittal Ind. Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10141 (N.D. Ind.), the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the plaintiff intentionally spoliated critical evidence. The defendant sought dismissal of the action, asserting that the plaintiff intentionally discarded and lost important physical evidence within hours of a fire that occurred while the defendant’s employees were performing work at its facility. The decision underscores the importance of taking immediate action to properly identify and secure potentially material evidence in order to satisfy ones duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and avoid any spoliation defenses and associated sanctions. In Arcelormittal, the court initially considered whether to apply state or federal law when analyzing a litigant’s duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and determine if that party committed spoliation. Since the case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court held that Indiana state law governed the spoliation analysis. As noted by the court, under Indiana state law, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, altercation, or concealment of evidence” is considered to be spoliation. Thus, under Indiana law, a party who knew or should have known that litigation was imminent “may not lose, destroy or suppress material facts or evidence.” The plaintiff argued that Indiana law requires a showing of improper purpose or bad faith to establish that a litigant spoliated evidence. The Arcelormittal court rejected the plaintiff’s argument. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work

December 20, 2017 — Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Although the homeowners did not own their homes when the subcontractors completed their work, the general contractor was still covered as an additional insured for the homeowners' suits based on the ongoing operations endorsement in the subcontractors' policies. McMillin Mgmt. Servs. v. Fin. Pac. Ins. Co., 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1000 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017). McMillin was the developer and general contractor for the project. Among the subcontractors were Martinez Construction Concrete Contractor, Inc. and Rozema Corporation. Martinez performed concrete flatwork between 2003 and November 2005. Rozema performed lath and stucco work between March 2003 and October 2005. Lexington issued CGL policies to Martinez and Rozema. McMillin was an additional insured under both policies, "but only with respect to liability arising out of your [i.e., Martinez's or Rozema's] ongoing operations performed for [McMillin]." An exclusion provided that the insurance did not apply to property damage occurring after the insured subcontractor had completed operations on behalf of the additional insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES