Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

August 20, 2018 — Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In June, the New York Court of Appeals examined the application of a New York Choice of Law provision in a contract – a determinative issue for the case. In Ontario, Inc. v. Samsung C&T Corp., the issue was whether the plaintiff’s claims were subject to Ontario, Canada’s 2-year statute of limitations or New York’s 6-year statute of limitations for breach of contract where the contract contained a broad New York Choice of Law provision. The court found that pursuant to New York’s borrowing statute, Ontario’s more restrictive statute of limitations applied. The action was dismissed as time-barred, serving as a harsh reminder of the potential effects of choice of law and limitations periods. The suit arose out of the following facts. In 2008, an Ontario renewable energy developer, SkyPower Corp. (“SkyPower”), entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the defendants which allowed the defendants to review SkyPower’s confidential and proprietary information. The review was conditioned on restricted disclosure and the requirement that the information would be destroyed after review. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com

Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

November 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. 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

What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

March 18, 2019 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

October 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Commerce Department has announced that construction spending has increased by 0.6 percent, but that modest gain puts it at the highest it has been in four and a half years. The last time construction spending was this high was April 2009. The rise in construction spending is due to increases in both public and private construction project. Public construction was up, despite a decrease in spending by the federal government. Private residential construction is at a five-year high. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Builder reported that the Department of Defense (DoD) is hosting a new “dynamic roofing system, installed at the Security Forces Building at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas,” which “uses a combination of technologies that heat and cool air and water, produce electricity, and collect rainwater.” If the project is successful, it “could be replicated at thousands of DoD buildings throughout the country in the near future.” Builder described the process: “A retrofitted metal roof is installed over the existing roof, which creates a cavity between the existing and new roofs. Within that cavity insulation, solar thermal heating systems and cooling of air and water for the building can be installed. The roofing, insulation, hydronic solar thermal systems, engineered air pathways, and photovoltaic cells are designed to work symbiotically.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Velazquez Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (Take 2) – Pre-lien Notice for Labor Unambiguously Not Required

May 13, 2024 — Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Pre-lien Notice for Labor Unambiguously Not Required. In January 2024, almost a year after Division 2 of the Washington Court of Appeals decided Velazquez Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc.,1 the Washington Supreme Court, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings.2 The relevant background facts are that Cascadia Homes, Inc. (“Cascadia”), was a general contractor and also owned the property that was the subject matter of the underlying dispute. Cascadia wished to construct a new home on the property. Cascadia hired High End Construction, LLC (“High End”) – a framing subcontractor – to provide framing for the new home. High End, in turn, hired Velazquez Framing, LLC (“Velazquez”). Velazquez did not provide Cascadia – the owner – with notice of its statutory right to claim a lien. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.com

Suspend the Work, but Don’t Get Fired

May 20, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Getting paid for your work is often times one of the hardest parts of a project. If you find yourself working without getting paid, it’s easy to think, “I’ll just stop working until I get paid.” While the law may support you in that decision, the contract may not and you may be found in breach of the contract if you walk off the job. Nebraska Law Nebraska courts have held that a contractor or subcontractor may stop working on a project if the owner or upstream contractor is in material breach. This, of course, raises the question of “What is a material breach?” The facts of the particular circumstance will control. But, the risk is significant. If the unpaid contractor is wrong, in that the breach is not material, he will face the claim by the upstream party for all costs necessary to finish the contractor’s work. If the upstream party is in material breach, he will face a claim for profit on the remaining portion of the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
CityCenter has raised a scenario out of a blockbuster movie in which an earthquake causes the tower to fall onto the Cosmopolitan or the Crystals mall, leading to lawsuits, investigations, and “plummeting stock prices.” But that didn’t sway Clark County District Judge Elizabeth Gonzales from putting a hold on the demolition of the tower. FM Global, CityCenter’s insurer, has requested more time to examine the building’s problems in order to determine how to act on CityCenter’s claim of total loss. Tutor Perini, the company that built the tower, agrees with the delay, since any monies from FM Global would reduce Tutor Perini’s liability. If FM Global denies the claim, the price for the builder would go up, should they fail at trial. That trial is now scheduled for April. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES