FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Texas Federal Court Finds Total Pollution Exclusion Does Not Foreclose a Duty to Defend Waterway Degradation Lawsuit

October 24, 2022 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
Evanston Ins Co. v. Tex. Concrete and Sand Gravel, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-00103 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2022) is a coverage dispute over Evanston Insurance Co.’s (“Evanston”) duty to defend and indemnify Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel, Inc. (“Texas Concrete”) and Apcon Services, LLC (“Apcon”) (collectively, the “Insureds”) for their contributions to the degradation of the waterways and retention lakes built to control flooding in the Houston area. On August 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho recommended that Evanston’s motion for summary judgment be denied. On August 30, 2022, District Court Judge Alfred H. Bennett adopted Judge Ho’s Memorandum and Recommendations. In 2017, Hurricane Harvey caused significant flooding of the Houston area, which resulted in large-scale property damage. The underlying lawsuits alleged that, since 1954, Lake Houston’s waterways sustained a steady decline in capacity because of the release of materials into the waterway system. The Insureds allegedly contributed to the decline by allowing “materials and substances” (such as processed water, silt, sand, sediment, dirt, rock, and aggregate) to run off their privately controlled properties and into the Houston waterways. The reduced capacity, allegedly caused in part by the Insureds, exacerbated the flooding after Hurricane Harvey hit, increasing the damage from the hurricane. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

---

Contractor Allegedly Stole Construction Materials

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Bronx man has been arrested for the theft of about $5,000 of construction materials and equipment from a New Hyde Park residence. When construction workers informed the homeowner of the missing items, the homeowner contacted Damion Brown, who apparently had previously been doing construction work at the home. Mr. Brown admitted he had taken the items but would not return them to the homeowner. The homeowner contacted police, who took M. Brown into custody. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

August 04, 2015 — Tanya Salgado – White and Williams LLP
The question of whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor or an employee is fraught with confusion and misunderstanding for many businesses. Compounding the problem is the fact that there are a number of different tests used to determine employee status, which vary by jurisdiction and by the particular law in question. For example, the Internal Revenue Service uses the common law rules which focus on the degree of control and independence exercised by the worker. In contrast, the United States Department of Labor uses the “economic realities” test which focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer. In an effort to help combat the confusion over proper worker classification, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a new Administrator’s Interpretation that provides a detailed explanation of the test used by the DOL to determine if a worker has been misclassified as an independent contractor. The DOL enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which mandates that employees (but not independent contractors) be paid minimum wage and overtime. When a business misclassifies non-exempt workers as independent contractors, and those workers are not paid the minimum hourly wage for their labor, or are not paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, this violates the FLSA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tanya Salgado, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Salgado may be contacted at salgadot@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Protect Your Right To Payment By Following Nedd

August 03, 2022 — Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
In order to preserve your right to payment, you must satisfy the contractual requirements supporting a change order for the increased costs or time due to the delay. The key to the successful presentation of change order claims is educating your team on the following: 1. NOTICE

• Review the change order and notice provisions of your contracts. Make your contract searchable and insert the term “Noti” and look for the items listed below.
• Who: Check the designated representative for notice.
• It may not be the project manager.
• Confirm who can authorize the change order.
• Is owner approval required?
• Ensure that the party approving the change order has authority to do so.

• What: Check for specific information required by the contract.
• Provide ALL information available.
• If certain information is not yet available, state that the information will be provided when available.
• Reserve all rights to amend and submit additional information.
• Request both an increase to the Contract Sum and Contract Time.
• Make the request even if you do not believe the delay or time necessary will cause a significant impact.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Ms. Motta may be contacted at dmotta@grsm.com

---

Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity

July 26, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Construction contracts oftentimes and should contain conditions precedent to payment. Conditions precedent apply to both progress payments and final payment. The conditions precedent operate such that payment is NOT due until the conditions are satisfied. The satisfaction of the conditions precedent triggers the payor’s obligation to pay. If a dispute arises due to the payee’s noncompliance with conditions precedent to payment, the noncompliance should be asserted with particularity in the answer and affirmative defenses. For example, if a subcontractor was required to provide lien waivers and releases as a condition precedent to payment, then this should be asserted with particularity as an affirmative defense. If the contractor’s receipt of payment from the owner was a condition precedent to payment to the subcontractor (pay-when-paid), then this should be asserted with particularity as an affirmative defense. Any noncompliance with a condition precedent should be identified as an affirmative defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

September 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Property Casualty 360 reported that for residents of the flood-prone area of Queens, New York, even “the slightest downpour could mean evacuating their homes for a night or even weeks at a time.” The problem is that “[m]uch of Southeast Queens, an area that includes the neighborhoods of Jamaica, St. Albans and Hollis, and parts of the Rockaways, sits on a massive aquifer that swells with groundwater and spills over into streets and eventually into basements and homes after heavy rains.” However, according to Property Casualty 360, Southeast Queens residents “have been battling insurance agencies for over a decade.” “I would say more than 90% of the homeowners I speak to out here, they’re looking for insurance and they’re not getting it,” Councilman Donovan Richards, who represents Roseland and Far Rockaway, told Property Casualty 360. “Insurance companies obviously don’t want to take the risk.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Continuing Breach Doctrine

May 28, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Have you ever heard of the “continuing breach” doctrine? Probably not. It is not a doctrine commonly discussed. It’s a doctrine used to try to argue around the statute of limitations. In an older Southern District Court of Florida case, Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 188 F.R.Ed. 667, 679 (S.D.Fla. 1999), the court explained: “Under this [continuing breach] doctrine, a cause of action for breach of a contract does not begin to accrue upon the initial breach; rather, on contracts providing serial performance by the parties, accrual of a breach of contract cause of action commences upon the occurrence of the last breach or upon termination of the contract.” Recently, this doctrine came up in an opinion by Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. In Hernando County, Florida v. Hernando County Fair Association, Inc., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D947b (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), a plaintiff appealed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of its breach of contract claim based on the statute of limitations. The plaintiff claimed the defendant breached the contract by its failure to substantially redevelop property. The trial court dismissed based on the statute of limitations. However, the complaint alleged the defendant’s failure to comply “with numerous other intertwined, ongoing, and continuing contractual duties and obligations.” Hernando County, supra. The Fifth District reversed based on the continuing breach doctrine: “Where the nature of the contract is continuous, statutes of limitations do not typically begin to run until termination of the entire contract.” Id. quoting and citing Allapattah Servs., Inc. 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

---

Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked

November 23, 2016 — Evelin Y. Bailey – California Construction Law Blog
Earlier this year we informed you that the federal Department of Labor intended to raise the minimum salary for individuals classified as executive, administrative, and professional (“white collar”) exempt employees. The result? About 4.2 million workers classified as exempt would become eligible for overtime pay on December 1, 2016, the effective date of the new rule. Businesses would need to pay $47,476 starting on December 1, 2016 to maintain the exempt status of workers. However, a combination of business groups and states sued to invalidate the regulation, requesting expedited and emergency injunctive relief. On November 22, 2016, a federal district court in Texas granted the emergency motion for a preliminary injunction barring the DOL from enforcing its new overtime rule. The injunction will remain until the resolution of this legal challenge to the rule. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Evelin Y. Bailey, California Construction Law Blog
Ms. Bailey may be contacted at ebailey@wendel.com

---