Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

June 08, 2020 — Taylor Orgeron - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case established a rule concerning the effect of an unlicensed contractor failing to disclose that he is unlicensed. In Fleetwood v. Lucas,[1] the contractor was hired by the homeowners to perform renovations on two homes. One of the projects went over budget, and the homeowners failed to pay the remaining balances on both projects. Following their failure to pay, the contractor sued the homeowners for breach of contract, and the jury delivered a verdict in his favor. The homeowners appealed on the grounds that the contractor was barred from bringing suit because the contractor did not have a license to perform the work. Generally, if a contractor does not have a residential or general contractor’s license but performs work when a license is required, the contract is unenforceable. O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(b). However, under O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(g), a contractor may perform repair work without a license if the contractor discloses that he does not have a license, and the work does not affect the structural integrity of the project. In this case, the contractor failed to disclose that he did not have a license. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Taylor Orgeron, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Orgeron may be contacted at orgeron@ahclaw.com

Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A new ten-acre neighborhood is springing up in northeast Boulder, Kalmia38. The development is being built by Markel Homes Construction Co. and Coast to Coast Residential Development. The first homes should be ready for residents by the second quarter of 2014, with building continuing on the project for about three years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

May 03, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

North Carolina may become the twelfth state to require a Certificate of Merit to sue an architect or engineer. If North Carolina Senate Bill 435 (SB435) passes, then plaintiffs when filing a complaint will need to also attach an affidavit of a third-party licensed professional engineer or architect stating that the case has merit.

SB435 is a short two pages in its current form. The bill states that the “third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall (i) be competent to testify and hold the same professional license and practice in the same area of practice as the defendant design professional and (ii) offer testimony based upon knowledge, skill, experience, education, training, and practice. The affidavit shall specifically state for each theory of recovery for which damages are sought, the negligence, if any, or other action, error, or omission of the design professional in providing the professional service, including any error or omission in providing advice, judgment, opinion, or a similar professional skill claimed to exist and the factual basis for each such claim. The third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall be licensed in this State and actively engaged in the practice of engineering or architecture respectively.”

A few of the amendments allude to disciplining design professionals who certify civil actions that are without merit. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary I.

While North Carolina is considering enacting a Certificate of Merit law, eleven other states already require one, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Christopher D. Montez, a partner with Thomas, Feldman & Wilshusen, LLP, has written a useful summary for each state’s certificate of merit scheme.

Read the text of SB435

Track the progress of SB435

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

May 16, 2018 — Christopher M. Horton - Smith Currie
All general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount. Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher M. Horton, Smith Currie
Mr. Horton may be contacted at cmhorton@smithcurrie.com

The Risk of A Fixed Price Contract Is The Market

August 03, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When performing work on a fixed price or unit, there is risk that is being assumed on your end. One risk is the market. You are ultimately banking on the fact that the market is not going to make your fixed prices unprofitable. That’s not an unforeseeable occurrence because the market shifts and that shift can have a negative ripple effect. In a recent case out of the Federal Circuit, U.S. Aeroteam, Inc. v. U.S., 2022 WL 243176 (Fed.Cir. 2022), this market risk played a role in a fixed price contract. Here, a contractor was hired by the federal government to produce ground support trailers. A key component of these trailers was a running gear. The contractor relied on a vendor for these running gears. Due to financial difficulties, the vendor had to raise its unit price for the running gears. Based on the increased price, the contractor elected to manufacture the running gears itself. The contractor asked the government if this was ok and the government approved the request. Once the contractor started manufacturing these running gears, it had an “awe” moment – the manufacturing costs were higher than anticipated. The contractor submitted a request for equitable adjustment which the government denied. The Contractor than sued the government raising three arguments to support its entitlement to additional costs: (1) constructive change; (2) cardinal change; and (3) commercial impracticability. The contractor lost on all arguments. It probably should have lost on all arguments. 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

Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

May 18, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision for collapse coverage. Commercial Constr. Endeavors, Inc. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., 2019 Vt. LEXIS 173 (Vt. Sup. Ct. Dec. 13,2019). Commercial Construction Endeavors, Inc. (CCE) built a livestock barn. By late December 2014, the barn was partially complete, with the foundation laid, wood framing erected, and roof trusses installed. In late December, strong winds caused the structure to collapse. CCE started clearing debris and rebuilding the barn, incurring additional labor and material costs. CCE reported the collapse to Ohio Security. The policy covered loss to "Covered Property." Ohio Security determined that the loss was covered for "Off-Premises Property Damage Including Care, Custody or Control." This endorsement provided coverage for damage to real property upon which CCE was performing operations where the damage resulted from those operations. Ohio Security paid CCE $24,750, the full amount available under the endorsement, less a $250 deductible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/4/24) – New CRE Litmus Tests, Tech Integration in Real Estate and a Jump in Investor Home Purchases

July 02, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, big bank exposure to CRE lending grows, concerns for the construction industry abound, U.S. hotel securitized loans come due, and more!

At some of the world’s biggest banks, loans to commercial real estate face new litmus tests that promise to shape the sector’s access to financing. (Frances Schwartzkopff and Gautam Naik, Bloomberg)
Big banks’ exposure to CRE lending grows by about 40% when indirect lending to REITs is added. (Todd Gillespiev, Bloomberg)
Cybersecurity threats, cost overruns, high interest rates, labor shortages and an economic downturn dominate the concerns of the construction industry. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

September 17, 2014 — Jerrold Anders & Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLP
In Prieto Corp. v. Gambone Construction Co., the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered three issues arising out of a construction dispute, including whether construction of a curb falls within the scope of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516. CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is intended to protect contractors and subcontractors from abuses in the building industry and which establishes certain rules and deadlines for payments between owners, contractors, and subcontractors. Failure to abide by the act’s payment requirements subjects an owner or contractor to liability for interest, penalties and attorneys fees. In this case, Prieto was a subcontractor hired by Gambone to construct concrete or Belgian block curbs at Gambone’s property developments. Prieto sued Gambone under CASPA for failure to pay its invoices for four projects. After the trial court entered judgment for Prieto, Gambone appealed, arguing that CASPA did not encompass the work at issue, i.e. the construction of curbs, because curbs did not constitute an improvement to real property. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold Anders, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES