Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Economist Predicts Housing Starts to Rise in 2014

February 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
David Crowe, chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), predicts “that single-family home starts in the U.S. could rise more than 30 percent in 2014,” according to Dallas News. “My single-family forecast for 2014 is pretty aggressive — it’s 822,000 starts,” Crowe said to Dallas News. “Which is roughly 200,000 starts more than what we will likely end up with in 2013.” Dallas News also reported specifically on the Texas market. The NAHB forecasts that “by next year, Texas’ housing production will be back to ‘normal’ levels.” However, that is still below “the pre-recession peak” numbers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

“A No-Lose Proposition?”

October 07, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act payment bond surety and its principal general contractor both sued in federal court in New Orleans by a project subcontractor sought to compel arbitration the claims against both contractor and surety based on an indisputably enforceable arbitration clause in the subcontract. This was urged to avoid separate actions against the contractor (arbitration) and its surety (litigation), even though the surety was not a party to the subcontract and, therefore, not a party to the arbitration clause. In the face of the lack of an express agreement to arbitrate, the contractor and contractor argued that “no federal statute or policy prohibits all of Plaintiff’s claims from proceeding to arbitration….” Additionally, those parties urged that the surety should be allowed to affirmatively compel arbitration because the surety “would otherwise have the ability to assert the right to compel arbitration as a defense….” The New Orleans federal district court was unpersuaded:

“[D]istrict courts within this circuit have recognized that ‘Miller Act claims by a subcontractor for unpaid labor and materials are separate and distinct from those for general breach of contract… [and] arbitration and Miller Act suits, are not, per se, inconsistent with one another.’…[A]bsent express contractual intent to subject Miller Act claims to arbitration, the court [will] not force the parties to arbitrate claims against nonparties to the contract at issue…. [C]laims against a surety, which was a non-signatory to the contract, would not be subject to arbitration without any contractual basis to do so.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Two Worthy Insurance Topics: (1) Bad Faith, And (2) Settling Without Insurer’s Consent

February 20, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, American Builders Insurance Company v. Southern-Owners Insurance Company, 56 F.4th 938 (11th Cir. 2023), is an insurer versus insurer case that touches on two important insurance topics: (1) common law bad faith against an insurance company, and (2) an insurer’s affirmative defense that an insured settled a claim without its consent. The Eleventh Circuit provides invaluable legal discussion on these topics that any insured (and an insured’s counsel) need to know and appreciate. While this article won’t go into the granular facts as referenced in the opinion, it will go into the law because it is the law the facts of a case MUST cater to and address. In this case, a person performing subcontracting work fell from a roof without fall protection and became paralyzed from the waist down. The general contractor had a primary liability policy and an excess policy. The general contractor’s primary liability insurer investigated the accident and assessed the claim. The subcontractor’s liability insurer, which was the primary insurance policy (the general contractor was an additional insured for work the subcontractor performed for the general contractor), did little to investigate and assess the claim and then refused to pay any amount to settle the underlying claim or honor its defense and indemnity obligation to the general 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

CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

August 26, 2015 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (No. S205889; filed 8/20/15), the California Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, holding that notwithstanding the presence of a consent-to-assignment clause in a liability policy, Insurance Code section 520 bars an insurer from refusing to honor the insured’s assignment of coverage after a loss has taken place during the policy period. In Henkel, the Supreme Court limited the ability of corporate successors to obtain coverage under predecessors’ policies on a contract theory. The Henkel Court held that where a successor corporation contractually assumed liabilities of the predecessor corporation, the insurance benefits would not automatically follow. The Henkel Court ruled that if the predecessor company’s policy contains a consent-to-assignment clause, any assignment of insurance policy benefits to a successor corporation required the insurer’s consent. The Court said that policy benefits are not transferable choses in action unless at the time of corporate transfer they could be reduced to a monetary sum certain. The Court reasoned that historic product or environmental liabilities might not even be known to the predecessor at that time, much less reduced to a sum certain, so coverage for such risks could not be considered a transferable chose in action. Thus, where the liability was inchoate at the time of the corporate transaction, the Henkel Court said that coverage would not necessarily follow because the insurer’s duties had not yet attached. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

July 10, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion of Whitley v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1503a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), as a follow-up to this article on the property insurance exclusion regarding the “constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days,” is a beneficial opinion to insureds. In this case, the insured had a vacation home. A plumbing leak occurred that caused water damage to the home. The plumbing leak occurred during a period of time that lasted approximately 30 days. For this reason, the property insurer denied the claim per the exclusion that the policy does not cover loss caused by repeated leakage of water over a period of 14 or more days from a plumbing system. Summary judgment was granted by the trial court in favor of the insurer based on this exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

February 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
West Deptford, New Jersey township redevelopment counsel Mark Cimino had spent a year arguing that the city should receive a $4 million reduction in construction costs due to “inadequate documentation provided by the bank, as well as receipts showing disbursement had ‘improperly’ been made toward uses other than construction,” according to a December 30th 2013 article in the South Jersey Times. However, a state appellate court upheld the ruling that “the township had no basis” to request the reduction. Now, Committeewoman Denice DiCarlo is “seeking a $10,000 refund on the attorney fees paid” to Cimino, the South Jersey Times reported on February 6th. “This entire matter has been a monumental waste of tax dollars, and I am angry that the entire township committee was misled by Mr. Cimino and induced to believe we had any reasonable chance of recovering loan proceeds from this lawsuit,” DiCarlo stated in a letter to Mayor Raymond Chintall. Not all committee members agree with DiCarlo. Committeeman Sam Cianfarini told South Jersey Times that “he still believed Fulton Bank owed it to West Deptford to answer for any funds put toward anything other than construction.” Cimino declared “that both the lawsuit and appeal were valid,” according to the February 6th article. He “accused DiCarlo of ‘playing politics.’” Read the full story, December 30th Article... Read the full story, February 6th Article... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Biden Unveils $2.3 Trillion American Jobs Plan

May 10, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This past week, President Biden unveiled his American Jobs Plan, a $2.3 trillion dollar plan to upgrade the nation’s infrastructure over 8 years. As we wrote about this past month, the American Society of Civil Engineers recently issued its 2021 Infrastructure Report Card which gave the country’s infrastructure a cumulative grade point average across several areas including roads, public transportations and schools of a disappointing C-. According to a White House fact sheet on the American Jobs Plan, while the United States is the wealthiest county in the world it currently ranks 13th when it comes to the overall quality of its infrastructure. Infrastructure spending at the federal level has historically been paid for through the gas tax. Currently, that tax is 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel. The last time the federal gas tax was increased, however, was nearly 30 years ago in 1993. The reason for this long hiatus? Voter backlash and backlash by big businesses whose fleets still primarily rely on fossil fuels and diminishing returns as the number of electrical and hybrid vehicles increasingly hit the streets. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Slow Down?

December 03, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Absolutely not, said the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal to a masonry subcontractor being sued for allegedly improperly refusing to honor a subcontract bid. A general contractor preparing its overall bid for a public project in Jefferson Parish relied in the process on the defendant masonry subcontractor’s bid. After a public bid process and receiving the award of the project, the general contractor was informed by the subcontractor that it believed that the unit price form that had been supplied to the sub “contained inaccuracies.” Notwithstanding offers by the GC to endeavor to address the purported “inaccuracies” during the project, most likely by a change order, the subcontractor refused to execute its subcontract. The general contractor then awarded the masonry work to another subcontractor for $368,222 more than the original sub’s bid. The GC filed suit – for recovery of $368,222 – against the defendant subcontractor during the course of the public project. The defendant sub objected, arguing to the court that the lawsuit was “premature.” At the heart of the prematurity argument: the sub urging that the general contractor filed suit before its right to recover damages had accrued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES