Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

What Do I Do With This Stuff? Dealing With Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

October 20, 2016 — Lyndsey Torp – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
You’ve successfully foreclosed on a commercial building in California, and, thankfully, the borrower moved out after foreclosure or after a period of tenancy. But the borrower left behind all sorts of property – furniture, filing cabinets, records, and other assorted property. While you may be tempted to just toss it all in the dumpster, doing so may subject you to liability. There are several statutes that you should consider when determining how to handle the abandoned property. Statutory Options for a Landlord A landlord-tenant relationship may arise following foreclosure if, for example, the owner of the property accepts rent from the former owner. If the tenant subsequently turns over possession of the commercial property but leaves personal property at the premises,[1] California Civil Code provides a landlord with statutory options to deal with “lost” (Cal. Civ. Code § 2080) or “abandoned” property (Cal. Civ. Code §1993). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

Rhode Island Affirms The Principle That Sureties Must be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can be Held Liable for Principal’s Default

August 21, 2023 — Dennis Cavanaugh & Tasnuva Islam - Construction Law Zone
Most bond forms in use today, including the standard form AIA A312-2010, contain express condition precedents that trigger a surety’s obligations under the bond. Under a performance bond, the bond obligee is required to provide formal notice to the surety that the principal has materially defaulted and that the surety must begin to perform under the terms of the bond. This principle is grounded in the idea that the surety should have an opportunity to address the default and investigate the claim so as to mitigate its own liability. Failure to provide sufficient notice will discharge the surety of its obligations under the bond. Reprinted courtesy of Dennis Cavanaugh, Robinson & Cole LLP and Tasnuva Islam, Robinson & Cole LLP Mr. Cavanaugh may be contacted at dcavanaugh@rc.com Ms. Islam may be contacted at tislam@rc.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Legislative Update: Bid Protest Law Changes to Benefit Contractors

November 24, 2019 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
A new statute became effective July 28, 2019 that benefits contractors who have bid protests in Washington. A bid protest is the only way for disappointed bidders to challenge irregularities in the public bidding process on public works projects. Bid protests ensure the integrity of the public bidding system and are the contractor’s only remedy if its bid is improperly rejected or the winning bidder has errors in its bid that render it nonresponsive. Under the old law, a contractor was required to submit their bid protest within 2 days after the bid opening. The problem was that a contractor often does not know the basis to protest an award without seeing the other bids to determine whether the winning bid was responsive. Many owners provide copies of the bids if requested at the bid opening, but some contractors found that owners were refusing to provide copies of the other bids until after the 2-day protest period expired. The new law, which passed this last Legislative session[1], states that a contractor has two days after the bid opening to either submit a written protest or request copies of the competing bids. If the contractor requests copies of the competing bids from the owner, the contractor then has until 2 days after the competing bids are provided by the owner before the contractor is required to submit its bid protest. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

May 21, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Property damage caused by a subcontractor's sheet piling was found to be within the policy's operation classification, which included "grading of land." Canal Indemn. Co. v. Margaretville of NSM, Inc., No. 13-13541 (11th Cir. April 15, 2014). Canal issued a CGL policy to the insured. The policy had a classification limitation provision: “This insurance applies to bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, advertising injury or medical expense arising out of only those operations that are classified and shown on the Commercial General Liability Coverage Declarations . . .” The policy's Declarations, in turn, referred to the operation classification as "Grading of Land - INCL. Borrowing, Filling or Back Filling." The policy did not define these terms. 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

Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

November 03, 2016 — Luke Mecklenburg – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
It’s official: the October 20, 2016 deadline to petition for certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals on its decision in Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. v. Bradbury has passed, so it appears that decision will stand. In Sierra Pacific, the Court of Appeals held as a matter of first impression that the statute of repose for a general contractor to sue a subcontractor begins to run when a subcontractor’s scope of work is substantially complete, regardless of the status of the overall project. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc. v. Bradbury, 2016 COA 132, ¶ 28, ___ P.3d ___. The Court of Appeals interpreted the statute of repose in C.R.S. section 13-80-104, which requires that “all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of any improvement to real property” must be brought within six years of substantial completion of that improvement. C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(a). Recognizing that “an improvement may be [to] a discrete component of an entire project” under Shaw Construction, LLC v. United Builder Services, Inc., 296 P.3d 145 (Colo. App. 2012), the Court of Appeals determined that “a subcontractor has substantially completed its role in the improvement at issue when it finishes working on the improvement.” Sierra Pac., 2016 COA at ¶¶ 20, 28. In doing so, it rejected Sierra Pacific’s argument that the statute could be tolled under the repair doctrine “while others worked to repair [the subcontractor’s] ‘improper installation work and flawed repair work.’” Id. at ¶ 29. Because six years had undisputedly passed since the subcontractor completed its scope of work when Sierra Pacific filed suit against it, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting the subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment under Section 13-80-104(1)(a). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

The Contributors to This Blog Are Pleased to Announce That….

November 02, 2017 — Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Snell & Wilmer’s Real Estate Litigation Group, which provides the content for The Real Estate Litigation Blog, is pleased to announce that it has been recognized in both the national and metropolitan rankings by U.S. News Media Group and Best Lawyers for the 2018 edition of “Best Law Firms.” We achieved the following rankings:

National Tier 1: Litigation – Real Estate
Phoenix (AZ) Tier 1: Litigation – Real Estate
Utah Tier 1: Litigation – Real Estate
Colorado Tier 1: Litigation – Real Estate
Reno (NV) Tier 1: Litigation – Real Estate
Tucson (AZ) Tier 1: Litigation – Real Estate

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Discovery Requests in Bad Faith Litigation Considered by Court

June 10, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court considered a variety of discovery requests by the insured in a bad faith case against State Farm. Stephens v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2015 WL 1638516 (M.D. Pa. April 13, 2015). The insured plaintiff was a quadriplegic. His complaint alleged that he notified State Farm, through its agent, that he would have to leave his residence for medical treatment and intended to rent the home while he received care for his disabling condition. The complaint further alleged that the insured was told by State Farm's agent that his insurance would remain unaffected by his departure while he sought medical care. Nevertheless, when the insured reported loss due to vandalism and water damage at his home, State Farm relied upon his departure from the residence to cancel his insurance. In discovery, the insured requested three categories of documents from State Farm. First, he requested State Farm's claims manuals, guidelines and instructions materials relating to insurance claims like those made by this insured. Second, the plaintiff requested performance reviews and performance incentive programs for all of State Farm's employees who played a role in decisions in this case from 2009 to the present. Finally, the plaintiff demanded that State Farm compile information relating to other insurance lawsuits brought against State Farm involving theft, vandalism and water damage claims, as well as all lawsuits or complaints regarding the conduct of this particular claims adjuster. When the materials were not produced, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. 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

DoD Issues Guidance on Inflation Adjustments for Contractors

August 15, 2022 — Jennifer Harris & Abby Salinas - ConsensusDocs
The Department of Defense (“DoD”) recently issued a memorandum to contracting officers (“COs”) guiding the use of economic price adjustment (“EPA”) clauses to address inflation-related cost increases. The memorandum, entitled Guidance on Inflation and Economic Price Adjustments, comes as the year-over-year inflation rate rose to 8.6% in May, and contractors with fixed-price contracts seek ways to recover their rising costs. EPA clauses allow the parties to mitigate cost risks that present themselves as a result of circumstances beyond the contractor’s control, e.g., inflation and supply chain price fluctuations. Generally, an EPA clause will dictate that the Government bear the cost risk up to a mutually agreed-upon ceiling. EPA clauses apply to the cost portion of a contract, but do not normally apply to the profit. DFARS PGI 216.203-4. Memorandum: No CO Authority to Grant Contractual Relief Absent an EPA Clause The memorandum states that absent an existing EPA clause, COs do not have the authority to provide contractual relief for unanticipated inflation under a firm-fixed-price contract. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) and Abby Salinas, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES