FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants

April 02, 2024 — Fred Hedberg & William Stoll - Construction Law Zone
After several decades, Governor Ned Lamont signed a bill into law, effective July 1, 2023, An Act Concerning Liability for False and Fraudulent Claims, Public Act No. 23-129, eliminating language that previously limited enforcement of Connecticut’s False Claims Act to claims relating to a state-administered health or human services program. The revisions dramatically expanded potential liability under the False Claims Act, allowing both private citizens and the Attorney General to bring actions under the Act in any context, including the construction industry. Consequently, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and design professionals on public construction projects in Connecticut must be familiar with this newly enacted law and take steps to reduce the risks of doing business on such projects. Reprinted courtesy of Fred Hedberg, Robinson & Cole LLP and William Stoll, Robinson & Cole LLP Mr. Hedberg may be contacted at fhedberg@rc.com Mr. Stoll may be contacted at wstoll@rc.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Though the sagging roof is neither leaking nor a safety hazard, the town of Waynesville, North Carolina is suing the builder of its new fire station, as reported in the Smoky Mountain News. The engineers who examined the roof found a substantial number of loose bolts in the roof trusses. Additionally, the trusses themselves have become bent.



Tom Galloway, Waynesville’s Town Manager said “it needs to be remedied and fixed.” He said that the builder, Construction Logic, “never indicated a willingness to fix the roof.” The town is seeking the cost of repair, which Galloway estimated could be $400,000, and an additional $30,000 in damages. The suit states that Construction Logic failed to follow the plan specifications for the roof.

Read the full story…

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

---

Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

November 13, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The court rejected the insurer's arguments that the business risk exclusions barred coverage for a contractor. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin v. Five Star Bldg. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134122 (D. Mass. Sept. 19, 2013). Five Star was hired by the University of Massachusetts to upgrade the ventilation (HVAC) system on a portion of a building. The large majority of the work involved work in the interior of the building, but a small portion required installation of duct work and supports on top of the roof of the complex. Five Star also penetrated the roof at numerous locations to install supports for duct work and other rooftop structures for the ventilation system. Other subcontractors then secured supports to the concrete roof deck and installed permanent patches where Five Star had penetrated the roofing system. On same days, Five Star could not accomplish the process in a single day after penetrating the roof. It would install temporary patches until the next day. This was the only work on the roof performed by Five Star. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Does the Russia Ukraine War Lead to a Consideration in Your Construction Contracts?

April 04, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Material costs are still affecting the construction industry. Supply chain impacts too. The volatility started with COVID-19 (and, in certain cases, before with the imposition of tariffs) and has continued through present date. But what about the war between Russia and Ukraine and the impact this has had or may have on the supply chain? I think the spillover from the war (with oil, gas, the energy sector, etc.), including the imposition of any sanctions, is not fully realized other than the concern exists in an economy that is already battling through material costs and supply chain disruptions. How does this affect you? It may not. Or you may regularly enter into construction contracts in which you would be smart to address material costs and supply chain impacts. The reason being is that everything from a risk standpoint should begin with your construction contract. Not addressing an issue does not actually mitigate the risk. Confronting the issue does mitigate the risk because you are contractually addressing a concern and know where the other party stands relating to that concern so that business decisions can be made. 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

---

Recent Decision Further Jeopardizes Availability of Additional Insured Coverage in New York

July 08, 2024 — Nina Catanzaro & Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Additional insured endorsements often provide “blanket” coverage to persons or organizations as required by a written contract. However, the wording of the “blanket” language is critically important, as the inclusion of certain phrases in an additional insured endorsement can result in a denial of coverage for the upstream party. For example, risk transfer issues can arise when an additional insured endorsement provides coverage to parties “when you [the named insured] and such person or organization [the additional insured] have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement.” Courts in New York (among other jurisdictions) have interpreted this phrase to require contractual privity – that is, only the entity that contracted directly with the named insured is entitled to additional insured coverage, even if the named insured agreed in that contract to provide additional insured coverage for others as well. The same goes for the phrase “any person or organization with whom you [the named insured] have agreed to add as an additional insured by written contract.” Reprinted courtesy of Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

When Does a Contractor Legally Abandon a Construction Project?

January 24, 2018 — Rick Erickson - Real Estate Litigation Blog
Lately, we’ve been spending more time as litigators pursuing and defending claims of abandonment against contractors. It has become apparent that abandonment is often misinterpreted in its legal meaning and effect. Here are some thoughts on abandonment to consider. On its face, the concept of abandonment is simple enough. For any number of reasons, a contractor abandons a project when the contractor stops showing up. Abandonment is major concern for all players on the project because it causes critical path delays and significant costs to replace the contractor with another contractor, many times at a much higher cost than the original contractors’ bid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

---

A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

April 22, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A termination for convenience is NOT a termination for default. They are NOT the same. They should NOT be treated as the same. I am a huge proponent of termination for convenience provisions because sometimes a party needs to be able to exercise a termination for convenience, but the termination is not one that rises to a basis for default. However, exercising a termination for convenience does not mean you get to go back in time and convert the termination for convenience into a termination for default. It does not work like that. Nor should it. An opinion out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals – Williams Building Company, Inc. v. Department of State, CBCA 7147, 2024 WL 1099788 (CBCA 2024 – demonstrates a fundamental distinction between a termination for convenience and a termination for default, i.e., that you don’t get to conjure up defaults when you exercise a termination for convenience:

Because a termination for convenience essentially turns a fixed-price construction contract into a cost-reimbursement contract, allowing the contractor to recover its incurred performance costs, the resolution of this appeal will involve identifying the total costs that [Contractor] incurred in performing this contract before [Government] terminated it for convenience. Since [Government] terminated the contract for convenience rather than for default, it no longer matters whether, in the past,[Contractor] acted intentionally in overstating the amount of its incurred costs or committed a contract breach. Ultimately, as permitted in response to a termination for convenience, [Contractor] will recover those allowable costs that [Contractor]establishes it incurred in performing the contract.

Williams Building Company, supra.

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

---

California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

April 03, 2013 — William L. Porter, Esq. - Porter Law Group

Death of “Type 1” Indemnity in California Construction

For many years the prevalence of the “Type 1” indemnity clause has been the subject of fierce debate within the construction industry.  Subcontractors have complained that they are saddled with indemnity obligations that require them to indemnify contractors from construction-related claims for which these subcontractors are truly not responsible.  In defense, contractors have argued that they must be entitled to the freedom to set contractual terms to best protect themselves and they point out that subcontractors are certainly free to negotiate better terms or turn down work.

After many years of debate and small legislative inroads in prohibiting Type 1 indemnity in residential projects and where it concerns the “sole negligence”, “willful misconduct” or the “design defects” of others, the California legislature has finally spoken broadly and definitively on the issue of Type 1 indemnity clauses in construction contracts.  Under new Civil Code section 2782, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013, broad “Type 1” indemnity clauses shall be void and unenforceable in the context of both private and public construction projects in California.  Civil Code section 2782 now makes it clear that subcontractors can no longer be required to indemnify against another’s active negligence in connection with construction contracts, whether public or private.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Esq.
William L. Porter, Esq. can be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---