Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

April 22, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A termination for convenience is NOT a termination for default. They are NOT the same. They should NOT be treated as the same. I am a huge proponent of termination for convenience provisions because sometimes a party needs to be able to exercise a termination for convenience, but the termination is not one that rises to a basis for default. However, exercising a termination for convenience does not mean you get to go back in time and convert the termination for convenience into a termination for default. It does not work like that. Nor should it. An opinion out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals – Williams Building Company, Inc. v. Department of State, CBCA 7147, 2024 WL 1099788 (CBCA 2024 – demonstrates a fundamental distinction between a termination for convenience and a termination for default, i.e., that you don’t get to conjure up defaults when you exercise a termination for convenience:

Because a termination for convenience essentially turns a fixed-price construction contract into a cost-reimbursement contract, allowing the contractor to recover its incurred performance costs, the resolution of this appeal will involve identifying the total costs that [Contractor] incurred in performing this contract before [Government] terminated it for convenience. Since [Government] terminated the contract for convenience rather than for default, it no longer matters whether, in the past,[Contractor] acted intentionally in overstating the amount of its incurred costs or committed a contract breach. Ultimately, as permitted in response to a termination for convenience, [Contractor] will recover those allowable costs that [Contractor]establishes it incurred in performing the contract.

Williams Building Company, supra.

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

Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

August 13, 2014 — Emily Heffter – Bloomberg
A unique and ornate palace for sale in Las Vegas was home to Michael Jackson in the strange and isolated years before his death. In fact, the King of Pop was the last tenant in the 24,000-square-foot estate, and his portrait still hangs above the fireplace. Jackson eschewed the main house and lived in the guest villa while he was rehearsing for his Las Vegas show, The One, from 2007-2009, according to listing agent Eddy Martinez of Miami Beach-based Worldwide Properties. To avoid the paparazzi, Jackson traveled through a tunnel under the main house and got directly into a car parked at the end of it, Martinez said. The Hacienda Palomino has only had two owners since theater developer Horst Schmidt built it in 1952. The home at 2710 Palomino Ln is "enchanting," said Martinez, and the property's unique features — including a musical note insignia used as an architectural feature — intrigued the late superstar. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Emily Heffter, Bloomberg

Changes to Judicial Selection in Mexico Create a New Case for Contractual ADR Provisions

November 25, 2024 — Juan Pablo Sandoval - The Dispute Resolver
The Mexican Congress recently discussed and approved a Constitutional Amendment called the “Judiciary Amendment” which was ironically published in the Official Gazette on September 15, 2024, the day before Mexican Independence Day. With this Judiciary Amendment, the Mexican Congress determined that Federal Judges, Federal Magisters and the Ministers of the Supreme Court will now be elected through direct and popular election. Before the Judiciary Amendment, Federal Judges and Magisters used to have a judicial career; many of them started as law clerks and were promoted step by step until becoming Judge or Magister. Ministers of the Supreme Court were appointed by the Senate through an election of three candidates designated by the President. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Juan Pablo Sandoval, COMAD, S.C.
Mr. Sandoval may be contacted at jpsandoval@comad.com.mx

Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

October 09, 2018 — Joseph R. Young - Smith Currie
Design and construction changes can be a challenge for everyone involved in a construction project. Designers and contractors endeavor to deliver a project that meets the owner’s needs, budget, and aesthetic considerations. As a project comes to fruition, the project frequently changes, and the parties must address and resolve the financial considerations of those changes and implement the changes at the project level. Often times the most critical aspect of a contractor’s financial success or failure of a construction project is its ability to manage changes. Contractors are sometimes faced with changes that are beyond the reasonable expectation of the original undertaking and have significant planning, scheduling, and cost implications that may not be considered or addressed in the contract’s changes clause. Changes of this magnitude may be considered “cardinal changes” and provide the contractor with recourse beyond restrictions imposed by the contract’s changes clause. But cardinal change is a risky basis for a contractor to refuse to perform additional or changed work. Even major changes can probably be more safely handled within the terms of the contract’s changes clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph R. Young, Smith Currie
Mr. Young may be contacted at jryoung@smithcurrie.com

Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

January 13, 2017 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

August 20, 2019 — Brian Hearst - Construction Executive
This is the second of three articles bringing clarity to the complex and challenging course of construction exposures and providing solutions for mitigating risk through builder’s risk insurance coverage. Part I, Builder’s Risk Coverage – Language Matters, addressed a select few critical exposures to projects under the course of construction. Part II addresses how a standard builder’s risk policy may respond to a loss arising from defective construction and alternative insurance market offerings that can help with specific costs associated with construction defect loss. Coverage for Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Part I tackled the standard builder’s risk exclusion that applies to losses arising from faulty materials or workmanship. Traditionally, carriers do not have an appetite for covering a contractor’s failure to perform their work properly. There is one exception, which is coverage is available for ensuing loss – or the resulting damage to other property from faulty workmanship. If the excluded cause of loss (i.e., faulty workmanship) causes resultant damage, the builder’s risk policy will cover the damages to the extent the peril of fire is covered. The ensuing loss exception limits the faulty work exclusion to costs directly related to repairing or replacing the faulty work. For example, suppose faulty wiring work leads to a fire which damages part of a structure under construction. The faulty workmanship exclusion would apply to the actual faulty wiring work, but if fire is a covered peril under the policy (this is nearly always the case), the policy would respond to the structure’s fire damage. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Hearst, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Hearst may be contacted at Brian.Hearst@lockton.com

Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry

October 11, 2017 — Evelin Y. Bailey - California Construction Law Blog
This month we share some cautionary tales for employers in the construction industry. During the past several months the California Labor Commissioner has cited or filed suit against several construction companies. In one investigation, a general contractor was held equally responsible for wages owed by a subcontractor to its employees. The lesson learned from these stories is that now more than ever it is important to have in place proper wage and hour practices and to conduct periodic audits of those practices, including those of your lower tiered contractors, preferably by experienced legal counsel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Evelin Y. Bailey, California Construction Law Blog

Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
The U.S. District Court in Alabama certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: Is damage to a project caused by faulty workmanship "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence"? With some qualification, the Connecticut Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Capstone Building Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886 (Conn. June 11, 2013). Captsone Development agreed to coordinate and supervise construction on a building at the University of Conneticut. Capstone Building was the general contractor. UConn secured an OCIP policy from American Motorist Insurance Company ("AMICO"). More than three years after completion, UConn notified the insureds of alleged defects in the project, including elevated levels of carbon monoxide. The source of the leak was the individual hot water heaters in residential units and insufficient draft of exhaust from the heater.Other defects were found during an investigation. The insureds tendered to AMICO. Coverage was denied because the liability arose out of the insureds' own work.The insureds settled with UConn, paying $1 million each. The insureds then sued AMICO in Alabama and the question was certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES