Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

“A No-Lose Proposition?”

October 07, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act payment bond surety and its principal general contractor both sued in federal court in New Orleans by a project subcontractor sought to compel arbitration the claims against both contractor and surety based on an indisputably enforceable arbitration clause in the subcontract. This was urged to avoid separate actions against the contractor (arbitration) and its surety (litigation), even though the surety was not a party to the subcontract and, therefore, not a party to the arbitration clause. In the face of the lack of an express agreement to arbitrate, the contractor and contractor argued that “no federal statute or policy prohibits all of Plaintiff’s claims from proceeding to arbitration….” Additionally, those parties urged that the surety should be allowed to affirmatively compel arbitration because the surety “would otherwise have the ability to assert the right to compel arbitration as a defense….” The New Orleans federal district court was unpersuaded:

“[D]istrict courts within this circuit have recognized that ‘Miller Act claims by a subcontractor for unpaid labor and materials are separate and distinct from those for general breach of contract… [and] arbitration and Miller Act suits, are not, per se, inconsistent with one another.’…[A]bsent express contractual intent to subject Miller Act claims to arbitration, the court [will] not force the parties to arbitrate claims against nonparties to the contract at issue…. [C]laims against a surety, which was a non-signatory to the contract, would not be subject to arbitration without any contractual basis to do so.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss

July 01, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's issuance of summary judgment regarding coverage for damages when the insured's plant had to be shut down due to an accident. Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace American Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (9th Cir. April 15, 2019). Ingenco operated a gas purification plant which converted raw landfill gas into usable natural gas. The final step in the purification process involved the removal of excess nitrogen from the landfill gas. The gas was directed through adsorbent beads, to which nitrogen adhered, contained within pressure vessels.The beads could not withstand the direct pressure of the landfill gas inflow. which, if untreated, could grind the beads down into dust. To reduce the force of the gas flow on the beads, a "diffuser basket" was suspended from the top of each bead-filled pressure vessel. The diffuser basket acted as a shield that prevented the full force of the incoming landfill gas from striking the beads directly. In 2010, metal brackets securing a diffiuser basket broke. This resulted in damage to other components and an eventual shutdown of the entire facility. The plant remained idle for several months as Ingenco investigated alternative nitrogen filtration options and undertook repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a list provided to the city of Los Angeles by the University of California, there are “about 1,500 old concrete buildings that are potentially at risk of collapse during an earthquake,” the Los Angeles Times reported. The list can help the city identify “concrete buildings most likely to fail in an earthquake.” The report, however, “does not amount to a list of dangerous buildings,” the university scientists told the Los Angeles Times. It is a list of concrete buildings built before 1980. Some of the “buildings are vulnerable, others are not.” Concrete buildings pose a potentially dangerous threat, reported the Los Angeles Times: “After the Northridge earthquake caused two concrete buildings to collapse and severely damaged others, structural engineers warned that the collapse of a single concrete building ‘has the potential for more loss of life than any other catastrophe in California’ since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.” Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles Mayor, has asked Lucy Jones, a U.S. Geological Survey seismologist, to act as his science advisor on earthquake issues. Garcetti has asked Jones “to come up with recommendations by the end of the year on retrofitting issues, including how to get privately owned concrete buildings retrofitted.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
Accusations are coming from both sides over construction defects at a Las Vegas tower, only this time, it’s not the Harmon Towers, it’s Hilton Grand Vacations, which is part of the Planet Hollywood Resort. The project was originally dubbed PH Towers Westgate, and it was developed by Westgate Resorts, which is suing the contractor, Tutor-Saliba for $10 million over late completion and construction defects. Among the defects Westgate is claiming are cracked floor tiles in the valet lobby and cracks and delamination of the pool deck. Tutor-Saliba argues that the failure of the valet lobby floor is due to Westgate specifying only 1/16th inch-wide grouting, instead of the specified ¼ inch, and Westgate’s refusal to allow expansion joints on the pool deck has lead to problems there. Westgate’s attorney, Robert Schumacher, attributes the problems to “shoddy construction practices.” According to the article in the Las Vegas Review Journal, plans were only 60 percent complete when construction began, leading to “thousands of change orders.” Despite not meeting an August completion deadline, Tutor-Saliba is claiming it is owed a $1.5 million bonus nevertheless. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

November 09, 2020 — Andres Avila & Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
On September 15, 2020, in a matter entitled The Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch & Others1, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, the equivalent of a trial court in the U.S., issued a ruling on a COVID-19 business interruption insurance case (the “Judgment”). Significantly, the Court sided with policyholders on most key coverage issues under specific non-damage business interruption insurance coverage forms. U.S. policyholders should review whether any of their policies issued by U.K.-based carriers, which may be subject to English law and have the forms discussed below, are impacted by this favorable decision. The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the U.K. financial regulatory body, brought the case to establish liability under 21 lead representative sample policy wordings from eight insurer defendants. The case was filed on an expedited basis on June 9, 2020 under the Financial Market Test Case Scheme, which is used for claims of general importance that require authoritative court guidance. Although the Judgment is legally binding only on the carriers who were parties to the action, the FCA estimates the case could affect 700 types of policies across 60 different insurers, and 370,000 small to medium-sized enterprises policyholders (“SME”) in the U.K. While the Judgment may be appealed, it is expected to incentivize insurers to settle their claims before the outcome of an appeal is known. Reprinted courtesy of Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Avila may be contacted at AAvila@sdvlaw.com Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractors Battle Bitter Winters at $11.8B Site C Hydro Project in Canada

October 30, 2023 — Jonathan Keller & Scott Blair - Engineering News-Record
Half the year spent in bone-aching cold. Soils frozen hard as concrete. Mountains of snow. A seemingly unending flow of machinery, workforce and earthen material to and from the site. A temporary city to house thousands of workers for nearly a decade. Wildfires encroaching dangerously close. Working under the ever-watchful eyes of regulators, stakeholders and environmentalists. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Keller, Engineering News-Record and Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record Mr. Keller may be contacted at kellerj@enr.com Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arguing Cardinal Change is Different than Proving Cardinal Change

April 05, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The cardinal change doctrine has become a popular doctrine for a contractor to argue under but remains an extremely difficult doctrine to support and prove. Arguing cardinal change is one thing. Proving cardinal change is entirely different. As shown below, this is a doctrine with its origins under federal government contract law with arguments extending outside of the federal government contract arena. For this reason, the cases referenced below are not federal government contract law cases, but are cases where the cardinal change doctrine has been argued (even though these cases cite to federal government contract law cases). A party argues cardinal change to demonstrate that the other party (generally, the owner) materially breached the contract based on the cardinal change. In reality, a party argues cardinal change because they have cost overruns they are looking to recover and this doctrine may give them an argument to do so. But it is important to recognize the distinction between raising it as an argument and the expectation that this (difficult doctrine to prove) will carry the day. 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

Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar

January 21, 2015 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
In a lengthy and somewhat detailed decision, the California Court of Appeal for First District, in Pittsburg Unified School District v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc., Case No. A138825 (December 22, 2014), held that a public entity could unilaterally withdraw retention funds during a pending legal dispute without the court first finding that the contractor had defaulted on the public works project. Background In 2008, general contractor S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc. (“S.J. Amoroso”) entered into a construction contract with the Pittsburg Unified School District (“District”) for the reconstruction and modernization of a high school in Pittsburg, California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES