Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know

July 20, 2020 — Amy R. Patton & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into legislation the bipartisan bill titled the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (PPPFA). The PPPFA modifies the Paycheck Protection Program, which was first introduced under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The modifications provide borrowers more control over the use of funds and make it easier to obtain forgiveness. The following is a summary of the key changes. 1. Extended Maturity Date From 2 Years to 5 Years Under the CARES Act, the minimum maturity date for loan amounts after the forgiveness period was not defined. The Small Business Administration (SBA) then released an Interim Final Rule clarifying that the minimum maturity date was two years. The PPPFA has extended the term to five years: “The covered loan shall have a minimum maturity of 5 years and a maximum maturity of 10 years from the date on which the borrower applies for loan forgiveness under that section.” 2. Extension of Covered Period From Eight Weeks to a Maximum of 24 Weeks Under the CARES Act, the covered period of the loan (i.e., the time period in which you may spend the loan funds) was February 15, 2020 to June 30, 2020, an eight-week period. The PPPFA extended the covered period to 24 weeks from the origination date of the loan, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Just When You Thought the Green Building Risk Discussion Was Over. . .

May 25, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As a reader of Construction Law Musings, you no doubt realize that I am a big proponent of “green” or sustainable building. I have also been known to sound a bit like Eeyore when discussing the charge into the breach of green building without considering the potential risks. Thankfully, and despite some of the risk predictions made here (and elsewhere for that matter) there have not been but so many major court cases relating to these risks. However, as a recent article in ENR Magazine warns, this lack of litigation does not mean that you should let your guard down. Just because the economy, warnings by attorneys and others, and possible lack of financial incentive to sue have kept the litigation numbers down does not mean that the risks have gone away. LEED requirements, time horizons and other risks that have become evident during the process of vetting green building contracts and practices still must be dealt with in contracts and insurance policies. These risks are well laid out in the ENR article and in other places here at Musings so I won’t outline them in detail here. 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

What Should Business Owners Do If a Customer Won’t Pay

January 02, 2024 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
It should be simple: you provide a service, and your customer pays you for that service. Unfortunately, it is not always so simple. Not getting paid for your work can be one of the most frustrating issues, especially for small businesses. It also does not take much for money matters to lead to larger disputes. So, what should small business owners do in these cases? 1. Start with a reminder notice Most sources, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, agree that business owners should not begin by escalating the situation. Take time to review and fully understand the circumstances of this individual case. Then, begin with resending the invoice or sending reminders to pay. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

November 04, 2019 — Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
California’s highest court held yesterday in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., that the state’s insurance notice-prejudice rule is a “fundamental public policy” for the purpose of choice of law analyses. This unanimous ruling, issued in response to certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, confirms and emphasizes California’s common law rule that policyholders who provide “late notice” may proceed with their insurance claim, absent a showing by the insurer of substantial prejudice. The California Supreme Court also extended the prejudice requirement, holding that a first-party insurer must show that it was prejudiced before denying coverage under a policy’s “consent provision,” which typically provides that the policyholder must obtain the insurer’s “consent” before incurring costs and expenses. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine and Michelle M. Spatz Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Bill would expand multi-year construction and procurement authority in Georgia

March 06, 2023 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
A bill introduced in the General Assembly would modify the authority of state and local governments, as well as school systems, to enter multi-year contracts for construction and procurement. In many prior posts, we have addressed state and local governments’ authority to enter guaranteed energy savings performance contracts and multi-year contracts.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

January 21, 2019 — Timothy Carroll & Anthony Miscioscia - White and Williams
A recent opinion by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (Second Department) highlights the potential risks for an insurer leaving an insured unrepresented while the insurer pursues other parties or insurers who may be primarily responsible for defending the insured. In refusing to overturn a default judgment entered against an insured while its insurer knew that a complaint had been filed but refused to defend, the New York court’s decision raises questions about how claims adjusters are to effectively manage new claims to prevent a default judgment being entered against the insured, while at the same time ensuring that the appropriate party or insurance company handles the insured’s defense. In Kaung Hea Lee v. 354 Management Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7749 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2018) (354 Management) the underlying plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendant insured due to its failure to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs then moved to determine the extent of damages to which they were entitled by virtue of the default judgment. The defendant opposed that motion, relying on an affidavit from a senior liability claims adjuster employed by the defendant’s insurer. “In the affidavit, the claim adjuster stated that she did not assign an attorney to answer the complaint because the codefendant . . . was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant [insured], and she had been attempting to have either [the codefendant] or its insurer provide an attorney” for the defendant. However, it was determined that the claims adjuster knew about the plaintiffs’ complaint two weeks after the plaintiffs served it on the defendant and months before the plaintiffs moved for default judgment. Despite this knowledge, the defendant’s insurer did not provide a defense or, apparently, obtain an extension of time to respond to the complaint, which led to the default judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

October 28, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

After carefully dissecting the earth movement exclusion, the court denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. High Street Lofts Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109043 (D. Colo. Sept. 26, 2011).

The City of Boulder performed road repair work near High Street’s property, some of which involved the use of a vibrating compactor to compact and set the roadbed. High Street noticed damage to its building, such as cracks in walls, sloping of floors and separations of porches from the building itself. High Street contacted the City of Boulder, who forwarded the complaint to its contractor, Concrete Express, Inc.

High Street also filed a claim with its business insurer, American Family, who denied the claim. American Family relied on an opinion letter by High Street’s engineer. The letter indicated that the damage was the result of "soil consolidation/settlement," in response to the construction activities. Based on this letter American Family concluded the claim was excluded under the policy’s earth movement exclusion.

High Street sued American Family, who moved for summary judgment.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

August 11, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

InÂ Continental Western Ins. Co. v. Shay Construction, Inc., No. 10-cv-02126 (D. Col. July 28. 2011), general contractor Milender White subcontracted with insured Shay for framing work.Â Â Shay in turn subcontracted some of its work to others.Â When Shay?s subcontractors filed suit against Shay and Milender White seeking payment for their work,Â Milender White cross-claimed against Shay for breach of contract alleging that,Milender White notified Shay during construction that some of Shay?s work was defective and that when Shay repaired its defective work, it damaged work performed by others.Â Shay’s CGL insurer Continental Western filed suit against Milender White and Shay seeking a judicial declaration of no coverage.Â The federal district trial court granted Continental Western?s motion for summary judgment.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com