FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

A Game of Texas Hold’em: How Texas Stopped Wage Increases for Salaried Exempt Employees Nationwide

December 03, 2024 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
Construction contractors often have to deal with classification of employees, particularly those who work in the home office. Today’s guest post by Alexandra Shulman and Leah Lively addresses a recent court decision affecting the wage protection of employees under the the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On November 15, 2024, a federal court in Texas vacated a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) rule (the “2024 Rule”) that increased the minimum salary threshold for employees classified as exempt from overtime and minimum wage protections under the FLSA. The Texas court’s decision nullifies the 2024 Rule nationwide, effective immediately. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Buchalter
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

---

Death of Subcontractor’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Project Owner

April 12, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a previous article, I discussed a subcontractor’s unjust enrichment claim against a project’s owner and the death of this equitable claim if the owner fully paid the general contractor or paid the general contractor for the subcontractor’s work. This can be best summarized from a very short 1995 opinion out of the Fourth District Court of Appeal: “Unjust enrichment is equitable in nature and cannot exist where payment has been made for the benefit conferred. [Owner] paid [General Contractor] the full amount of its contract for the construction project. Accordingly, there can be no unjust enrichment claim to support [Subcontractor’s] claim.” Gene B. Glick Co., Inc. v. Sunshine Ready Concrete Co., Inc., 651 So.2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A. Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Marcin Gradziel, who formerly worked for a construction company in Camden County, New Jersey, has been sentenced to seven years in state prison for insurance fraud. Mr. Gradziel admitted to creating fraudulent property damage claims, which he did for Precision Network Solutions, which did business as Precision Builders. Mr. Gradziel and others went through neighborhoods telling residents that their roofs or siding were damaged by hail and that they could get their homes repaired at no cost. Mr. Gradziel would then return to create damage before the inspectors arrived. Another employee, Dominik Sadowski, previously plead guilty, as did Precision Builders. The firm paid out $68,720 in restitution and is now out of business. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

September 21, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman
Most general liability policies only provide coverage for “property damage” that occurs during the policy period. Thus, when analyzing coverage for a construction defect claim, it is important to ascertain the date on which damage occurred. Of course, the plaintiffs’ bar crafts pleadings to be purposefully vague as to the date (or period) of damage to property. A recent Fifth Circuit decision applying Texas law addresses this coverage issue in the context of allegations of a condition created by an insured during the policy period that caused damage after the policy expired. In Gonzalez v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 969 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2020), Gilbert Gonzales (the insured) was a siding contractor. In 2013, the underlying plaintiff hired Gonzales to install new siding on his house. In 2016, the underlying plaintiff’s house was damaged in a fire. The underlying plaintiff sued Gilbert in Texas state court alleging that when Gonzalez installed the siding in 2013, he hammered nails through electrical wiring and created a dangerous condition that caused a fire three years later in 2016. At the time Gilbert performed construction work, he was insured by Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage to Gonzales on the basis that the complaint unequivocally alleged that property was damaged in 2016 and there were no allegations that property damage occurred prior to 2016 or was continuing in nature. 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

---

No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

March 12, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
Colorado’s new procedure for interlocutory appeals has its limits. In the recent decision of Rich v. Ball Ranch Partnership, ___ P.3d ___, 2014 COA 6 (2015), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that Appellate Rule 4.2 does not permit interlocutory review of questions of law in “garden-variety” or “run-of-the-mill” contract disputes. This resolves a subtle question that has been lingering since Colorado first created the interlocutory appeal process four years ago. Prior to 2011, Colorado did not permit civil litigants to seek appellate review prior to final judgment, except in a small handful of situations. As I discussed in an article at the time, this changed with the passage of C.R.S. § 13-4-102.1 and the adoption of Rule 4.2, which granted the court of appeals discretion to permit the immediate appeal of certain district court orders. These provisions allowed parties to seek interlocutory review of orders before the conclusion of a case if a district court could certify that (1) immediate review might promote a more orderly disposition or establish a final disposition of the litigation, and (2) the order involved a controlling and unresolved question of law. The rule was patterned after 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides similar relief in the federal courts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com

---

Employees Versus Independent Contractors

February 23, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Are the workers you employ on the job site considered employees or independent contractors? This is an important distinction that contractors and subcontractors must understand for many purposes, including federal taxes. The classification of your workers can affect their federal income, social security, and Medicare taxes, and the type of benefits they can receive. When determining whether workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors, courts generally look at three key factors: behavioral control, financial control, and the relationship of the parties. Behavior Control Behavior control concerns the business’s right to direct or control how the worker does its work. A worker is likely to be considered an employee when the business maintains behavior control. Such control can be exercised by giving instructions. This would include instructions on how, when, or where to do the work, what tools or equipment to use, who to hire to help with the work, or where to purchase the supplies to be used. Behavioral control can also occur through training. If the business provides training to tell the worker to do the work in a certain manner then the worker is more likely to be an employee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

---

The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

October 23, 2012 — David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

Gene and Diane Melssen d/b/a Melssen Construction (“Melssen”) built a custom home for the Holleys, during which period of time Melssen retained a CGL insurance coverage from Auto Owners Insurance Company. Soon after completion of the house, the Holleys noticed cracks in the drywall and, eventually, large cracks developed in the exterior stucco and basement slab. Thereafter, the Holleys contacted Melssen, the structural engineer, an attorney, and Auto-Owners, which assigned a claims adjuster to investigate the claim.



In April 2008, the Holleys sent Melssen a statutory notice of claim pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5 (“NOC”). In this NOC, the Holleys claimed approximately $300,000 in damages related to design and construction defects. The Holleys also provided a list of claimed damages and estimated repairs, accompanied by two reports from the Holleys’ consultant regarding the claimed design and construction defects. In June 2008, Melssen tendered the defense and indemnity of the claim to Auto-Owners. While Auto-Owners did not deny the claim at that time, it did not inspect the property or otherwise adjust the claim. Thereafter, in October 2008, Auto-Owners sent Melssen a letter denying coverage on the basis that the damage occurred outside of the applicable policy period.



Ultimately, Melssen settled the claims against it for $140,000.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

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

---

Addressing Safety on the Construction Site

January 27, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Construction Law Musings Guest Post, we welcome a new face, Patrick Rafferty. Patrick (@ThePraff) is a consultant for Brahman Systems and has an interest in construction safety. First of all, I’d like to say that I am not an attorney. Anything I say in this article should be taken with a grain of salt. All of the information that I have written in this article comes from personal work experience on the worksite. Each year, construction sites around the nation see hundreds of thousands of injuries related to equipment operation and situations that could be avoidable with the right precautions in place. In 2011 alone, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, there were 4,069 workers killed on a construction site, most of which were avoidable. Though some sort of on-site problems are unavoidable, they can be minimized with simple practices that every construction site should have in place, whether it is the building of a high-rise building or a simple house renovation. Here are some of the most common issues that lead to injuries on the construction site: Lack of training Before anyone steps onto a construction site, they need to have a thorough understanding of not only what they will be doing, but also how to use the equipment involved in the building process. All operators of heavy machinery should have verifiable training on the machine or equipment they will operate. Most equipment dealers offer training as part of their customer service, such as usage manuals, videos and quizzes. Once these are complete, many will offer a certificate of completion at the end of the process. The larger and more complex the machine, the more time should be allotted for training. 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

---