Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

January 28, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- Purchases of new homes in the U.S. jumped in December to the highest level in more than six years, a sign the industry is poised to keep expanding in 2015. Sales increased 11.6 percent to a 481,000 annualized pace, exceeding all estimates in a Bloomberg survey of economists and the most since June 2008, figures from the Commerce Department showed Tuesday in Washington. Demand increased in three of four regions. Gains in employment, borrowing costs close to historically low levels and easing credit may prompt more prospective buyers to enter the housing market. The improving outlook is driving up confidence among builders, and companies such as D.R. Horton Inc. and Lennar Corp. project the recovery will be sustained. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

Thanks for My 6th Year Running as a Construction Litigation Super Lawyer

May 16, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the sixth straight year to the Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2022. Add this to my recent election to the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists. So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the 5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2020. The full lists of Virginia Super Lawyers will appear in the May edition of Richmond Magazine. Please check it out. 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

Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

September 21, 2020 — Jeff Clare - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the U.S. economy, restaurateurs and bar owners are feeling the brunt of business closures and adaptations necessary to combat the disease. Where cozy and intimate dining was once de rigueur for the restaurant industry, these businesses must now shift to outdoor dining with adequate space and airflow between parties. In response to these concerns, many cities across the country who once fought against the loss of any parking have turned to a post-automobile tactic: outdoor dining in thoroughfares and parking lots. While at first glance it might seem a simple enough prospect—throw some chairs and a table out front, and voilà—property owners and restaurateurs must remain cognizant of various liability and regulatory hurdles for operating outside. With Great Space Comes Great … Potential Liability. One of the largest concerns for landowners in operating in a new space for business is liability. Who is on the hook if someone gets hurt dining in an impromptu dining space in a parking lot? Prior to beginning new outdoor dining operations, landowners and restaurateurs should contact their insurance providers to ensure that the new space is included in their insurance coverage. This is a particular concern for larger commercial landowners who may have various businesses vying to use their parking lot for business. Many leases have carefully crafted clauses limiting where a business may operate and where their liability ceases. Landowners and business owners should review their leases for any such clauses and negotiate with one another to ensure that liability in these new spaces is clearly defined. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Clare, Pillsbury
Mr. Clare may be contacted at jeff.clare@pillsburylaw.com

To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

April 28, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
It’s been the fodder of debate of philosophers, academics and the rest of us for ages:

Do we have free will or are our actions predetermined and the result of preceding events?
Are human beings fundamentally selfless or self preserving?
Coca-Cola or Pepsi?
iOs or android?

And for litigators and their clients, including us construction lawyers, arbitration or litigation? Or, in short, if a project goes sideways, in what forum will you resolve your dispute? It’s an important question the answer to which could mean the difference between winning or losing. 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

The Construction Project is Late—Allocation of Delay

November 17, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
The construction project is late. Very late. The owner is upset and notifies the contractor that it is assessing liquidated damages. The contractor, in turn, claims that the project is late because of excusable, compensable delays and, perhaps, excusable, noncompensable delays. This is a common and unfortunate story between an owner and contractor on any late construction project. Now the fun begins regarding the allocation of the delay! Through previous articles, I discussed that in this scenario the burden really falls on the contractor to establish that the liquidated damages were improperly assessed against it and, thus, it is entitled to additional time and/or extended general conditions as a result of excusable delays. Naturally, this requires the contractor to develop a critical path analysis (time impact analysis) allocating the impacts / delays (and the reasons for the impacts/ delays) to the project completion date. The reason the burden really falls on the contractor is because the owner’s burden is relatively easy – the project was not complete on time pursuant to the contract and any approved changed orders. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
You can do a lot with a backhoe, but maybe not use it for bank robbery. The New York Daily News wasn’t clear on how many were involved, but described them as “a brazen crew of bandits.” They stole a backhoe from a construction site and used it to pry an ATM from a bank. When they couldn’t get the ATM open, they jumped into a black SUV and left the scene. The bandits were engaging in a sort of ATM spree. They did manage to open two ATMs, each holding more than $7,000 in cash. They were less successful at their use of heavy machinery. In an earlier heist, they used a tow truck to try to remove an ATM, but the chain snapped and the bank’s alarm rang. The Daily News quotes one former tow truck driver who said that it was “stupid to use a tow truck.” In her experience, “those chains snap at any time.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment

December 07, 2020 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In American Reliable Insurance Company v. Lancaster, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a property insurer’s summary judgment motion concerning the insurer’s denial of a fire loss claim. The basis of the denial was that the policyholders had failed to pay the policy premium. The policyholders, Charlie and Wanda Lancaster, claimed that they had paid their policy premiums for several years to their insurance agent, Macie Yawn. In October 2014, American Reliable mailed a renewal notice to the Lancasters notifying them that premium payments had to be made directly to the insurer. After it did not receive payment from the Lancasters, American Reliable sent them a cancellation notice in December 2014, again notifying them that payments be made directly to the insurer. The Lancasters denied having received either notice from American Reliable, but the record included a receipt for certificate of mailing. After the Lancaster’s home burned down in 2015, American Reliable denied coverage on the grounds that the policy had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium. In the subsequent coverage action, the trial court denied American Reliable’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that a factual issue existed as to the actual and apparent agency of the insurance agent, Yawn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in deciding that there was a factual issue concerning Yawn’s agency. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruled that the record showed American Reliable had terminated Yawn’s agency to accept policy premiums, and that the Lancaster’s received notice of that termination in the renewal and cancellation notices. In addition to determining that Yawn was not an actual agent, the Court held that Yawn did not have apparent agency, because the notices sent to the Lancasters stated that the premium payment was to be paid to American Reliable, not to the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

November 15, 2022 — Michael S. Levine, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matthew J. Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Delaware court recently granted summary judgment to a mortgage broker targeted in a federal government investigation for alleged False Claims Act violations, holding that the company’s directors and officers liability (“D&O”) insurer was required to indemnify more than $15 million in settlement costs with the U.S. Department of Justice. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, No. N20C-04-268 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2022). We previously reported on the policyholder’s earlier victory in this case, in which the court held that a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from federal authorities triggered the insurer’s obligation to pay defense costs under the D&O policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES