Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

April 03, 2019 — Bob Henry - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In September 2018, in Baumgartner v. Timmins, 245 Ariz. 334, 429 P.3d 567, the Arizona Court of Appeals provided further clarification on what constitutes an “encumbrance” on a property for purposes of Arizona’s statutory scheme prohibiting the recording of “false documents.” The statute, A.R.S. § 33-420, prohibits the recording of documents that a person knows to be forged, are groundless, or that contain material misstatements (or false claims). A person who claims an “interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against” real property who records such documents can be held liable for $5,000 or treble the actual damages caused by the recording (whichever is greater), A.R.S. § 33-420(A), and perhaps even be found guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, A.R.S. § 33-420(E). At issue in Baumgartner were neighbors fighting about CC&Rs—a typical neighborhood fight. In 2015, some of the neighbors filed suit against the Timminses for violating the CC&Rs. The Timminses did not contest the lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment. In what the Court of Appeals characterized as a lawsuit filed by the Timminses “in apparent response to the [first] lawsuit and resulting default judgment,” the Timminses created, signed, and recorded affidavits contending that the Plaintiffs in the original lawsuit were themselves “in violation of several provisions of the CC&Rs.” The Plaintiffs then filed suit again against the Timminses, this time contending that the Timminses had violated A.R.S. § 33-420 by recording the affidavits because the affidavits, the Plaintiffs contended, created encumbrances on their properties. The Apache County Superior Court agreed, and issued a final judgment nullifying the recorded documents and awarding the Timminses damages, along with their attorneys’ fees and costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bob Henry, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com

Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

September 26, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Is the item or event you are claiming as an unforeseeable, excusable delay really unforeseeable? This is not a trick question. Just because your construction contract identifies items or events that constitute unforeseeable, excusable delay does not mean those items can be used as a blanket excuse or crutch for the contractor. That would be unfair. For instance, it is not uncommon for a construction contract to list as unforeseeable, excusable delay the following events or items: “(i) acts of God or of the public enemy, (ii) act of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (iii) acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government, (iv) fires, (v) floods, (vi) epidemics, (vii) quarantine restrictions, (viii) strikes, (ix) freight embargoes, (x) unusually severe weather, or (xi) delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the subcontractors or suppliers.” See, e.g., F.A.R. 52.249-10(b)(1). While the itemization of excusable delay may be worded differently, the point is there may be a listing as to what items or events constitute excusable delay. An excusable delay would justify additional time and, potentially, compensation to the contractor. 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

Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

December 21, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court refused to remand the insureds' case after the insurer removed from state court. Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15681 (D. Haw. Nov. 10, 2016). The underlying case was filed in state court on Maui. The underlying plaintiffs were condominium owners who brought claims against the insured, Maui Land and Pineapple Co., Inc. (MLP), and other defendants allegedly involved in the development of the project. Ryan Churchill, one of the named defendants, served as president of MLP and was on the board of the project's Association of Apartment Owners (AOAO). The underlying plaintiffs asserted claims for: breach of fiduciary duty; seeking access to books and records of the AOAO; and for injunctive/declaratory relief against MLP, Mr. Churchill, and all other defendants. 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

More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

June 04, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, I’m back. It’s been quite a while since my last post due to some busy family times and running my law practice. Hopefully, you will hear from me more often in the future. Now. . . on with the post: I have often discussed indemnity provisions here at Construction Law Musings. I’ve posted on a range of things relating to indemnity from when those sticky clauses are unenforceable to what to look out for in such a clause when reviewing your construction contract. A recent case out of Fairfax examines another wrinkle in these indemnity clauses. In Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, LLC v. Paramount Constr. Servs., LLC, the Court examined the language of a fairly typical indemnity clause in a construction contract. The general facts of the case are as follows. The Plaintiff alleged that it owns the property at 6129 Leesburg Pike, that it entered into a contract with Paramount Construction Services LLC to install clothes washers and dryers in individual units at the property, and that, in the process, Paramount (or one of its subcontractors) negligently severed a water pipe, which caused significant damage to the property. The plaintiff’s property insurance carrier agreed to pay the plaintiff $2,598,918.41. But the actual damages exceeded that payment by $952,020.90. The plaintiff sued Paramount for $952,020, pursuant to an indemnity provision in the contract. Paramount demurred to the Complaint arguing that the indemnity clause did not apply to create liability for Paramount. 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

First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

February 22, 2018 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
Millennials are playing homeownership catch-up. First-time buyers rushed into the market last year, making 38 percent of all U.S. single-family home purchases, the biggest share since 2000, data released Thursday by Genworth Mortgage Insurance show. The 2.07 million new or existing homes bought by first-timers was 7 percent more than in 2016, according to the insurer, part of Genworth Financial Inc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

May 06, 2019 — Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., Case No. B281411 (2019) WL 1090217, plaintiff Laurence Johnson (Johnson) was a maintenance engineer employed by an independent contractor that provided control room staff to defendant Raytheon Company, Inc. (“Raytheon”). Johnson was monitoring the computers in the control room when he received low water level alarms pertaining to the water cooling towers. Johnson went to the cooling tower wall in order to look over the wall and verify the water level. Johnson saw the upper half of an extension ladder leaning against the cooling tower’s wall. The ladder had a warning sign which said, “CAUTION” and “THIS LADDER SECTION IS NOT DESIGNED FOR SEPARATE USE.” Despite these warnings, Johnson used the ladder. As he was climbing the ladder it slid out causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Johnson sued Raytheon, the hirer of the independent contractor, arguing the ladder, among other things, was unsafe and lead to Johnson’s injuries. Johnson believed that Raytheon’s course of conduct of leaving a platform ladder (as opposed to the extension ladder) at the wall constituted an implied agreement to always have one present, on which the independent contractor’s employees relied. Johnson further argued that Raytheon was negligent in providing a dangerous extension ladder, as opposed to a platform ladder, at the wall on the night of the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Ms. Lindsey may be contacted at lursua@hbblaw.com Mr. Lawrence may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

San Francisco Office Secures Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Action

November 25, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
San Francisco, Calif. (October 31, 2024) - After a ten-day jury trial in San Francisco Superior Court, Partner Alex Graft recently secured a defense verdict in a legal malpractice action arising out of underlying litigation with the claimants’ homeowners association. The claimants alleged his client attorneys negligently advised them that the terms of the settlement agreement would result in the creation of a so-called independent board of directors for the homeowners association. It did not come to fruition. After the attorneys withdrew, they sued for their outstanding fees, which elicited a cross-complaint alleging malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

U.S. Department of Defense Institutes New Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

July 13, 2020 — Joseph N. Frost - Peckar & Abramson
Contractors doing business with the Federal Government, particularly with the Department of Defense (“DoD”), commonly handle sensitive information that is not intended to be disseminated. Controlled Unclassified Information (“CUI”) is one such type and is more specifically defined as “information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls pursuant to and consistent with laws, regulations and government-wide policies.”1 Because some DoD contracts require contractors to handle CUI, certain safeguards have been put in place to ensure its security. This article briefly touches on the current cybersecurity protocols, followed by a discussion of the new system being developed by the DoD, and what contractors most need to know about the new system. The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) has long required contractors to comply with certain cybersecurity standards, as published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”). Specifically, DFARS sought to implement the cybersecurity framework found in NIST Special Publication (“SP”) 800-171, entitled “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations.” NIST SP 800-171 sets forth fourteen (14) families of recommended security requirements for protecting the confidentiality of CUI in nonfederal systems and organizations, including, among others, access control, audit and accountability, incident response, personnel security, and system and information integrity. However, after a series of data breaches, the DoD reassessed the efficacy of the continued use of NIST SP 800-171 and ultimately decided to institute a new methodology to ensure the security of CUI. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph N. Frost, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Frost may be contacted at jfrost@pecklaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES