Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

June 15, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Public payment bonds (excluding FDOT payment bonds) are governed under Florida statute s. 255.05. As it pertains to venue—the location to sue a public payment bond–the statute provides in relevant portion: (5) In addition to the provisions of chapter 47, any action authorized under this section may be brought in the county in which the public building or public work is being construction or repaired. *** (1)(e) Any provision in a payment bond…which restricts venue of any proceeding relating to such bond…is unenforceable. Now, what happens if a subcontractor sues only a payment bond but its subcontract with the general contractor contains a mandatory venue provision? For example, what if the general contractor is located in Lee County and the subcontract contains a venue provision for Lee County, the project is located in Collier County, the subcontractor is located in Miami-Dade County, and the surety issues bonds in Miami-Dade County? Does venue have to be in Lee County per the mandatory venue provision? 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

Recent Changes in the Law Affecting Construction Defect Litigation

October 19, 2017 — David M. McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation
On May 23, 2017, Governor Hickenlooper signed HB17-1279 into law. The bill states that before an HOA’s executive board can institute a construction defect action, it must provide notice of the anticipated commencement of the action to each of the HOA’s unit owners, along with certain disclosures about the anticipated action. The bill also requires that the HOA executive committee convene a meeting of the unit owners to consider the action, and that the construction professionals against which the claim is being brought have the opportunity to address the members of the HOA. The bill also states that the HOA executive committee may only initiate a construction defect action if it is approved by “owners of units to which a majority of votes in the association are allocated.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Tetra Tech-U.S. Cleanup Dispute in San Francisco Grows

July 15, 2019 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Justice Dept. and consultant Tetra Tech are ramping up a battle over alleged false claims for payment the firm submitted to the U.S. Navy under $261 million in contracts for radiological tests and cleanup at San Francisco’s former Hunters Point base, a Superfund site being developed for up to 12,000 residential units. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Officials claimed the failure of a bridge in Afton Township, Illinois was because trucks owned by Welded Construction used the bridge despite exceeding the bridge’s weight limit of 36.5 tons. The firm argued that they should be responsible for the depreciated cost of the bridge, not its replacement cost. Welded Construction had been using the bridge to get to the site of an oil pipeline construction project for Enbridge Energy. Replacement of the bridge was initially estimated at $933,000, but that was in advance of any design work. Enbridge Energy settled the case at $900,000, which should cover most or all of the cost of repair or replacement. Some federal funds may also be available for repairing or constructing a new bridge. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Trade Contract Revisions to Address COVID-19

August 23, 2021 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Many trade contracts contain a clause that may protect trade contractors from catastrophic events like pandemics. These clauses are known as force-majeure clauses (covering acts of God). They basically say if these unavoidable events happen, the contractor is relieved of its obligations to the extent of the impact. However, many common industry forms have not been updated to specifically address COVID-19. (They may be waiting to see how the courts treat their existing language first.) So to ensure impacts from COVID-19 are covered, a trade contractor should consider expressly adding it to the force-majeure clause. See the example below. Notably, typical force-majeure clauses do not say the trade contractor gets more money. So an escalation clause could be added to the force-majeure clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

July 28, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
A recent case in North Carolina illustrates the types of problems created when a general contractor accepts a subcontractor’s bid and then allows the subcontractor to perform the work without obtaining a signed subcontract.[i] In this case, the general contractor (Choate Construction Company – “Choate”) accepted a bid from a foundation subcontractor (Southeast Caissons, LLC – “SEC”). Choate sent the subcontract to SEC. SEC provided its changes in a “Proposed Addendum” to the subcontract stating, “[SEC] hereby accepts the terms of the attached Subcontract, subject to and conditioned upon Choate[’s] acceptance of the terms set forth in this Addendum[.]” After that, Choate called SEC and exchanged emails concerning the subcontract terms, but did not reach an agreement. SEC then performed its subcontract and sought payment, and acknowledged it had not signed the subcontract. Choate agreed it owed SEC something, but refused to pay because SEC did not have a signed subcontract, asserting the subcontract was not binding on Choate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

July 05, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case out of the Northern District of Florida dealing with a federal project provides an interesting discussion about a sub-subcontractor asserting a claim against the prime contractor for unjust enrichment. The prime contractor argued any benefit to it was indirect which does not support an unjust enrichment claim as the actual direct benefit flowed to the owner of the project – the government. The federal district court agreed and dismissed the sub-subcontractor’s unjust enrichment claim against the prime contractor because an indirect benefit does NOT support an equitable unjust enrichment claim. See U.S.A f/u/b/o Eco Universe Contracting, LLC v. Calvary Construction Group, Inc., 2023 WL 3884642 (N.D.Fla. 2023). 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

NJ Supreme Court Declines to Review Decision that Exxon Has No Duty to Indemnify Insurers for Environmental Liability Under Prior Settlement Agreement

November 29, 2021 — Patricia B. Santelle & Laura Rossi - White and Williams
On November 1, 2021, in a single-sentence Order, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied a request for review of a decision that ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon) did not have to indemnify certain of its insurers over environmental liabilities as required by a previous settlement agreement. The case, entitled Home Insurance Company v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics Incorporated, et al., has a unique and convoluted procedural history but, in short, the denial of review leaves standing a holding by the intermediate appellate court that the insurers’ “untimely notice actually prejudiced Exxon, violated the no-prejudice rule, and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” The court declined to consider the question framed by the insurers: whether the importance of enforcing settlement agreements outweighs New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine. The matter dated back almost thirty years, when the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection notified the Appearing London Market Insurers (ALMI) of the potential liability of Cornell-Dublier Electronics (CDE), a former indirect subsidiary of Exxon, for pollution at a site in New Jersey. Coverage litigation followed in New Jersey, which ALMI defended under policies issued to CDE. Exxon was not named in the CDE suit nor were the policies which ALMI issued to Exxon at issue in that case; Exxon instead had its own pollution coverage case pending in New York. In June 2000, Exxon and its insurers, including ALMI, entered into a settlement agreement which (a) required Exxon to indemnify the insurers for any environmental liability claims involving its subsidiaries, and (b) provided for application of New York substantive law and litigation in New York City court for any dispute between the parties under it. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and Laura Rossi, White and Williams Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES