FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

January 02, 2024 — Joel P. Williams - White and Williams LLP
The Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion in a case construing an American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Company, LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, et al. 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 720 (Oct. 30, 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a performance bond surety was discharged from liability where the owner/obligee failed to give the surety notice of the contractor’s default termination until after a third party had completed the work. The project concerned the construction of an assisted living facility in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The owner, Wildewood Operating Company, LLC, entered into an A312-2010 performance bond with Clark Turner Construction, LLC, as contractor, and First Indemnity of America Insurance Company, as surety. When Clark Turner failed to complete certain stormwater management work adjacent to the site, Wildewood, Clark Turner, and other parties entered into a Work Agreement to address completion of the work. The surety was not a party to the Work Agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joel P. Williams, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Williams may be contacted at williamsj@whiteandwilliams.com

---

'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

January 08, 2019 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
The underlying causes of the trouble at San Francisco’s 4.5-block-long Salesforce Transit Center are coming into focus. A combination of low fracture toughness deep inside thick steel plates, cracks present as a consequence of normal steel fabrication and stress levels from loads, which are a function of design, apparently caused brittle fractures in the bottom flanges of the center's twin built-up plate girders that span 80 ft across Fremont Street. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Too Soon?”

July 02, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Not at all, said the Louisiana Supreme Court, in a case dealing with the timing of filing of a claim for indemnity. In the case, a Louisiana intermediate appellate court had earlier ruled in very short order on a supervisory writ application (reversing the trial court) that a claim for indemnity (based upon an indemnity clause in a construction contract) was “premature” until a “determination that damages are actually owed and the indemnitee sustains a loss. … At this time, the lawsuit is still pending against [the putative indemnitee], and no determination of liability had been made; thus, there is no obligation for indemnity and defense costs. … Stated differently, indemnity (or reimbursement) is not available at this time because [the indemnitee] has not discharged a liability which [the indemnitor] should have assumed or otherwise suffered any loss or damages. … Accordingly, [the] cause of action for indemnity and defense is not ripe for adjudication.” Bennett v. Demco Energy Servs., LLC, 2023-0581 (La. App. 1 Cir. 09/11/23); 2023 La. App. LEXIS 1449. 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

---

Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord

October 17, 2022 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In J&J Fish on Ctr. Str., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-644-bhl, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16361, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (District Court) recognized that “[t]here will be no further fish fries on Center Street until someone pays to repair the collapsed floor at J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. (J&J Fish).” The contenders were: 1) J&J Fish; 2) its’ insurer, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Insurer); and 3) J&J Fish’s landlord, Vision Land, LLC (Vision). Recognizing Insurer’s right to subrogate against Vision based on the terms of the parties’ lease, the District Court held Insurer owed J&J Fish coverage for the losses it sustained, but that Insurer could subrogate against Vision for anything it had to pay J&J Fish. In J&J Fish, Vision and J&J Fish signed a lease (Lease) for a building (the Building) located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Lease required Vision to “purchase and keep in full force and effect on the building(s) . . . insurance against fire and such other risks as may be included in all-risks policies . . .” Vision, however, never obtained any insurance on the Building. Pursuant to the Lease, Vision also agreed to “maintain and repair the structure including the slab floor and exterior walls of the Premises.” With respect to J&J Fish, the Lease required J&J Fish to maintain “Physical Damage insurance, including but not limited to fire . . . and all other risks of direct physical loss as insured . . . for the full replacement cost of all additions, improvements (including leasehold improvements) and alterations to the Premises.” J&J Fish purchased a commercial property and casualty insurance policy (the Policy) from Insurer. The Policy covered “additions, improvements . . . and alterations” as the Lease required. In addition, it insured the Building itself against “collapse,” subject to certain exceptions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Hunton Insurance Head Interviewed Concerning the Benefits and Hidden Dangers of Cyber Insurance

December 04, 2018 — Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The head of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s insurance practice, Walter Andrews, was interviewed earlier this week by ABC 7 (WJLA) concerning the need for cyber insurance and the benefits that it can provide to government contractors and other businesses that are impacted by a cyber event. Andrews explains the diverse spectrum of benefits that are available through cyber insurance products, but cautions that a serious lack of uniformity exists among today’s cyber insurance products, making it crucial that policyholders carefully analyze their cyber insurance to ensure it provides the scope and amount of insurance they desire. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

---

Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

March 31, 2014 — David W. Evans and Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Law firms seeking to recover attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in fee dispute litigation with their former client should hire outside counsel in order to avoid waiving any entitlement to such fees. Evaluating any potential exposure for a professional negligence claim or cross-claim before filing suit should also be considered. In Soni v. Wellmike Enterprise Company, Ltd., et al., No. B242288 (filed March 26, 2014) the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a law firm, represented by its own employees and associates, was not entitled to recover attorney fees as the prevailing party, pursuant to the attorney’s fee provision in the retainer agreement. The Soni decision is the latest addition to the general prohibition enunciated by Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 (“Trope”) and its progeny that law firms are precluded from recovering attorney’s fees for self-representation. In Soni, the law firm obtained a $28,384 judgment for delinquent legal fees against a former client. The firm then filed a motion for attorney’s fees, seeking $120,912 as the fees it incurred as the prevailing party under the retainer agreement. The trial court denied the motion based on the general rule set forth in the Trope line of cases that fees are not recoverable where the firm is represented by attorneys employed by the firm, despite the presence in the applicable retainer agreement of a clause notifying the client that fees the law firm would seek if it prevailed would include those for its in-house personnel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Blythe Golay, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that “non-contracting parties may bring negligence claims for construction defects because such claims are not barred by the economic loss doctrine,” as Richard Erikson writes in a Snell & Wilmer Legal Alert. In the case of Sullivan v. Pulte Home, Pulte had built the home in 2000. The original buyer sold it to the Sullivans in 2003. The Sullivans discovered construction defects in a retaining wall in 2009. The lost their original lawsuit, but the appeals court found that if the Sullivans filed within two years of finding the damage, they could sue. The case then progressed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Erikson points out that in an amicus brief, a number of parties in the Arizona homebuilding industry argued that “the appellate court’s ruling was commercially irreconcilable with expectations of builders, homeowners, homebuyers, engineers and architects in the construction industry.” Nevertheless, the Sullivans prevailed at court. Erikson asks what the actual limit on construction defects must be, given that the court found for plaintiffs who discovered construction defects nine years after the home was built. “How many years after the builder finishes a home does it have to plan on defending defect claims—10, 20, 30 years?” He proposes that the Arizona legislature needs to clarify the specific limits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Express Warranty Trumping Spearin’s Implied Warranty

March 06, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Be mindful of that express warranty provision in your contract. It could result in an outcome that you did not consider or factor when submitting your proposal or agreeing to your contract amount. An express warranty could have the effect of eviscerating the argument that you performed your scope of work pursuant to the plans and specifications. In other words, the applicability of the Spearin doctrine could be rendered moot based on express warranty language in your contract that is fully within your control because you do not have to agree to that language. Under the Spearin doctrine:

[W]hen a ‘contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specification.’ Spearin and its progeny set forth a default rule of fundamental fairness that when a general contractor requires a subcontractor to follow certain plans and specifications, the general contractor impliedly warrants that those plans and specifications are ‘free from design defects.’ Put simply, Spearin protects subcontractors from liability for simply following the general contractor’s direction and requirements. However, the implied warranty set forth in Spearin and its progeny may be overcome by express agreement. Where a general contractor and subcontractor expressly agree to allocate the risk of a defective product to the subcontractor, that express agreement must prevail over Spearin’s implied warranty. Lighting Retrofit International, LLC v. Consellation NewEnergy, Inc., 2022 WL 541156 (D. Md. 2022) (internal citations omitted).

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

---