Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

February 12, 2024 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
In a recent Board decision dated December 13, 2023, the United States Army Corps of Engineers sought to amend its answer in the case of APPEALS OF – KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., under Contract No. W912GB-13-C-0011. The proposed amendment introduces an affirmative defense, contending that Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) made material misrepresentations in its proposal, rendering the fully-performed contract void ab initio. Background: The contract in question, executed on July 9, 2013, was for the construction of an Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System site in Deveselu, Romania, with a firm, fixed-price amount of $134,211,592. The Corps moved to amend its answer to allege that KBR’s material misrepresentations induced the Corps to enter the contract, justifying the voiding of the contract. The alleged misrepresentations include issues related to subcontractor quotes, firm fixed prices, subcontracting plans, and more. Motion to Amend and Legal Defense: The Corps, despite delays in formally amending its answer, argued that KBR was aware of the potential affirmative defense before the conclusion of fact discovery. The proposed affirmative defense asserts that KBR made eight material misrepresentations in its proposal, upon which the Corps relied in awarding the contract and defending against a GAO protest. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in a construction defect case, Lee v. Gorham. Minnesota law requires that contractors warranty that the home will be free of major construction defects during the first ten years, but claims must “be brought within two years of the discovery of the breach.” The Lees received a home inspection report in 2009 that identified a variety of defects, including “several possible structural defects.” The court noted that the report stated, “Contact your builder in writing of the findings, and discuss your options with an attorney.” The Lees contacted the contractor, Gorham Builders. After initial silence, Gorham told the Lees that problems would “have to be ‘turned over to [the] insurance company.’” Rodney noted in his testimony that he had two choices, to either sue Gorham or hire an outside contractor. Mr. Lee had concluded that the legal costs were likely to be equal to the cost of the contractor. In June, 2011, the Lees changed their mind about bringing a suit. Gorham sought and received a summary judgment dismissing the case on the grounds that too much time had passed since the Lees learned of the construction defect. The Lees appealed. The appeals court upheld the summary judgment. The Lees claimed that the 2009 home inspection did not alert them of a “major construction defect,” but the court concluded that the language of the report fit within the Minnesota statutory definition of a “major construction defect.” Nor was the appeals court convinced that at any time did Gorham provide “assurances that it would cure the defects to the home.” Within the same month as the May 2009 inspection, Gorham had made it clear that any problems were an issue for the insurance company. Thus, the appeals court concluded that the Lee’s equitable-estoppel argument was without merit. The Lees also brought to appeal the new argument that they did not realize they were dealing with “major construction defects” until they received a subsequent home inspection in 2011. The court noted that the second report does not detail “new defects or structural issues not identified in the 2009 inspection report.” In addition to being “without merit,” the court noted that this claim was not made in the district court and so the appeals court “need not consider this issue on appeal.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Beware of Design Pitfalls In Unfamiliar Territory

September 05, 2022 — Brad Shefrin - Engineering News-Record
$250,000. $1.5 million. $12 million. These are the litigation damage estimates that plaintiffs sought to recover against design professionals who failed to familiarize themselves with local site conditions. Reprinted courtesy of Brad Shefrin, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

February 03, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case. In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:

an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.

The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Best Lawyers Recognizes Fifteen White and Williams Lawyers

August 17, 2017 — White and Williams LLP
Fifteen White and Williams lawyers were recognized on the 2018 Best Lawyers in America list. Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Factor the Factor in Factoring

May 03, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
What is factoring? Have you heard this term used in the business context? Factoring is not uncommon in the business world. It comes up when a business is in need of cash (immediate cash flow) and sells/assigns money owed under accounts receivable to a third party known as a factor. The factor purchases the accounts receivable at a discount in consideration of an assignment of the full value of the accounts receivable from the debtor (the entity that owes the money under the accounts receivable). The factoring arrangement is a recognized relationship, implicates Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code, and places obligations on the debtor to pay the factor directly for the accounts receivable upon notice of the assignment. 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

Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

December 15, 2016 — Ellen Burrows – White and Williams LLP
Calling into question the continued validity of the so-called “Bellefonte Rule,” on December 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether a facultative reinsurance contract limit is presumptively all-inclusive and “caps” the reinsurer’s total exposure even where the reinsured policy pays defense costs in addition to the limit. Global Reinsurance Corporation v. Century Indemnity Company Docket No. 15-2164-cv (December 8, 2016).[1] In Bellefonte Reinsurance Company v. Aetna 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990), the court ruled that a reinsurer was not liable to pay defense costs above the stated reinsurance contract limit. Although litigants argued that this ruling was dependent on the fact that the reinsured policy limits were defense cost-inclusive, a later panel of the Second Circuit applied the “cap” ruling in Bellefonte to a situation where the reinsured policy limit was not cost-inclusive and where the insurer was obligated to pay defense costs in addition to the policy limit. Unigard Security Insurance Company v. North River Insurance Company 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellen Burrows, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Burrows may be contacted at burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com

Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

December 17, 2015 — Laura C. Williams & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Daniel v. Ford Motor Company (filed 12/02/15), the Ninth Circuit resolved a federal and state court split on the issue of whether consumers can sustain a breach of implied warranty claim under California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (aka the “lemon law” statute) for “latent” defects discovered after the warranty period has expired. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit followed the holding in the California state appellate decision of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 (2009), which definitively determined there is nothing in California’s lemon law that requires a consumer to discover a latent defect during the duration of the warranty. The underlying class action lawsuit was brought in federal district court by purchasers of Ford Focus vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged Ford was aware of, but failed to disclose, a rear suspension defect in the Focus that resulted in premature tire wear which can cause decreased vehicle control, catastrophic tire failure and drifting on wet or snowy roads. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims including violations of California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Ford successfully moved for summary judgment on all claims prompting an appeal. Reprinted courtesy of Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES