Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

There’s an Unusual Thing Happening in the Housing Market

October 03, 2022 — Tracy Alloway - Bloomberg
It’s no secret that the US housing market has been softening as interest rates rise at the fastest pace in decades. Higher mortgage rates mean the dramatic growth in home prices that we’ve seen over the past two years is beginning to slow. Sales of new homes recently came in at the weakest monthly level since 2018. Meanwhile, purchase applications are down 20% year-on-year, and so on. But the rapid pace of rate hikes has also resulted in an interesting statistical anomaly. Months of supply — or the number of months it would take for the existing inventory of homes on the market to sell at the current sales pace — has jumped to 4.1 from a record low of just 2.1 back in January of this year. And, as Morgan Stanley strategist James Egan notes, rarely have we seen an increase of this size. To some extent, the jump in inventory is to be expected. It’s maths. As sales volume falls while inventories rise, months of supply naturally increases. But such a jump is intuitively striking, and the key question for housing-watchers is whether the absolute level of inventory — which is still low by many measures, even as homebuilders have ramped up construction since last year — will turn out to be more important than its rate of change. A housing market that is structurally undersupplied is going to be a lot less vulnerable to fewer sales. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracy Alloway, Bloomberg

Even Fraud in the Inducement is Tough in Construction

November 06, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed how hard it is in the Commonwealth of Virginia to make out a claim for fraud when a construction contract is involved. On limited exception is where a claim for “fraud in the inducement” is involved. Essentially, such a claim states that one party was hoodwinked into entering the contract in the first place. Because of the initial fraud (for instance misrepresenting the class or existence of a contractor’s license), the courts may bypass the terms of the contract and allow a claim for fraud to go forward. While you may think that this would lead to many claims making it past a Motion to Dismiss, at least one court here in Virginia makes it clear that such claims will not be taken lightly and must be supported by specific and substantial allegations that would support more than just “advertising” or opinion. In County of Grayson v. Ra-Tech Services Inc., the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia reviewed an amended complaint from the Plaintiff seeking to make out a claim for fraud in the inducement based upon the defendant’s statements in support of a proposal that certain brands of equipment would be used. The Court further considered general allegations that the Defendant never intended to provide those particular brands of equipment. 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

Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

May 20, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's claim for bad faith investigation regarding their hail damage claim did not survive the insurer's motion for summary judgment. Amarillo Hospitality Tenant, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56228 (N. D. Tex. April 29, 2015). A hailstorm caused damage to the Courtyard Marriot. The day after the storm, the insured inspected the roof of the hotel and observed damage to a sign and some aluminum vent tubes. No damage to the roof itself was observed. Subsequently, leaks were found on the tenth floor of the hotel. A public adjuster concluded that the roof had sustained damage during the hailstorm. The insured filed a claim with Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company. The insurer paid for the cost of repairing the damaged sign. To determine whether the damage to the roof was caused by the hailstorm, the insurer hired Donna Engineering, who conducted two inspections of the roof. Both inspections concluded that the hailstorm did not cause damage to the roof. Consequently, the claim was denied. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

January 15, 2014 — Brady Iandiorio - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
In a recent case of first impression, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the economic loss rule does not bar a nondisclosure tort claim against a seller of a home, built on expansive soils which caused damage to the house after the sale. The case of In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis represents a new decision regarding the economic loss rule. Because it is a case of first impression, we must wait to see whether the Colorado Supreme Court grants a petition for certiorari. Until then, we will analyze the decision handed down on November 7, 2013. The sellers of the home sold it to an entity they controlled for the purpose of repairing and reselling the home. Before that purchase, Sellers obtained engineering reports including discussion of structural problems resulting from expansive soils. A structural repair entity, also controlled by Sellers, oversaw the needed repair work. After the repair work was completed, Sellers obtained title to the residence and listed it for sale. Sellers had no direct contact with Gattis, who purchased the residence from Sellers. The purchase was executed through a standard-form real estate contract, approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission: Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate, to which no changes were made. Several years after taking title to the residence, Gattis commenced action, pleading several tort claims alleging only economic losses based on damage to the residence resulting from expansive soils. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Iandiorio may be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

Back Posting with Thoughts on Lien Waivers

May 20, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After a week of being unable to post due to the rigors of my solo construction practice, I’m back on the blogging train. For those of you that missed my new musings this past week, I hope that you had a chance to look through some of the past Guest Post Friday posts for some good stuff to read. During the course of my busy week last week, a question came up regarding the mechanic’s lien waivers that commercial construction companies routinely execute as part of the payment process. The waiver forms vary, but each essentially states that in exchange for payment the payee, whether a subcontractor or supplier (or even general contractor) waives its future rights to record a mechanic’s lien for the work that is covered by the payment received. Most if not all of these forms further require a certification that the funds paid will either be used to pay suppliers or that suppliers have already been paid. This general description is not the reason for this post. As is always the case in the Commonwealth of Virginia where the contract is king and a court is unlikely to reinterpret any written contractual document, the devil is in how that waiver is worded. Some waivers are worded in such a way that they essentially require a payee to certify receipt of the funds prior to payment being received. These same forms require the same pre-payment certification that all suppliers and subcontractors of the payee have already been paid. In short they require a payee to both place complete trust in the payor that the check will be paid and that the check will not bounce while in many cases (often with an unstated “wink and nod”) claiming payment was already made when all know the likelihood is that it has not. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

2017 California Construction Law Update

December 15, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
To say it’s been an exciting year in politics would be an understatement. While most of the nation’s attention was focused on the presidential election, state legislatures, including California’s, were busy at work. The California State Legislature introduced 3099 bills during the second session of the 2015-2016 session of which 808 bills were signed into law. 2016 saw the enactment of several bills of interest to the construction industry including bills related to alternative project delivery methods, prevailing wages, and licensing. Each of the bills discussed below takes effect on January 1, 2017. Project Delivery AB 2126 – Amends Public Contract Code section 6701 to increase the number of projects the Department of Transportation may use the construction manager/general contractor method of project delivery from no more than 6 projects, to 12 projects, of which 8 of the 12 projects would be required to use Department employees or consultants under contract with the Department to perform all project design and engineering services. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

December 30, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found coverage for alleged faulty workmanship was barred by the Combination Construction Related Endorsement and Roofing Endorsement. Evanston Ins. Co. v. A&S Roofing, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142828 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 22, 2019). In 2010, A&S entered into a subcontract with the contractor to replace roofs on three buildings owned by Oklahoma Property Investors (OPI). Eagle was a subcontractor of A&S that installed the roofing. After the roofs were replaced, OPI filed suit against A&S, alleging that A&S provided 15-year warranties for the roofing work performed on the three buildings and that A&S breached each warranty by performing the work in a poor manner, resulting in failures to each of the roofs. OPI sought monetary relief including damages to its properties, of its tenants, and costs of repairs to its properties. A&S's insurer, Evanston, denied coverage. Evanston pointed to the"legally obligated to pay" language of the CGL policy and argued coverage only extended to tort-based claims. Evanston argued the OPI lawsuit did not allege any tort claims, only warranty claims arising from contract. Second, Evanston contended the alleged "poor craftsmanship" giving rise to the claims in the OPI lawsuit that did not constitute an "occurrence" under the policy. 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

David Uchida Joins Kahana Feld’s Los Angeles Office as Partner

December 31, 2024 — Linda Carter - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that David M. Uchida recently joined the firm as a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles Office. He is a member of the firm’s General Liability group. A client-focused and seasoned litigator, David has defended product manufacturers and suppliers in complex toxic tort and environmental litigation. David also has extensive experience defending clients in alleged asbestos, benzene, and silica exposure claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES