FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Include Materials Price Escalation Clauses in Construction Clauses

December 26, 2022 — Robert Alfert Jr. - Construction Executive
The construction sector has been in a bull market for an unprecedented period of time. With the novel impacts from the coronavirus—and all the associated side effects, such as government moratoria, shipping delays and materials availability—we are now in a market of extreme volatility in pricing, inflation and increasing capital finance rates. And yet the construction sector continues to plow forward despite uncertainty, producing critical infrastructure, and much necessary housing, among other projects. The signs are that this trend will continue at least through Q1 of 2023, and likely beyond that, especially when you factor into the equation the many billions of dollars being placed into the market through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It is not surprising, therefore, that the number one issue in construction contracts in 2022 is how parties handle inflation and materials cost escalations in existing contracts and in the negotiations for new contracts. There is no other issue more heavily negotiated, often disputed and hotly debated in the construction sector today. Reprinted courtesy of Robert Alfert Jr., Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Alfert may be contacted at robert.alfert@nelsonmullins.com

---

Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

July 10, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On June 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided the case of Orchard Hill Building Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the District Court granting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Orchard Hill Building Company’s (Orchard) complaint that the Corps’ jurisdictional determination erroneously found that the waters at issue were “jurisdictional waters” under the Clean Water Act (CWA) subject to the Corps’ jurisdiction. Acknowledging that the Corps and EPA had promulgated a new rule re-defining “waters of the United States” in 2015—which is now being challenged in the courts—the Court of Appeals noted that this case is controlled by the pre-2015 definition of “waters of the United States.” The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Corps, directing it to determine if there was a significant nexus, as required. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

April 19, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In law school, one of the first legal doctrines we learn is known as the “statute of frauds.” The statute of frauds is essentially a defense to a contract enforcement action claiming the contract is unenforceable due to the statute of frauds. In other words, this doctrine is raised when one party seeks to enforce a contract. The other party argues, “not so fast,” because the contract is NOT enforceable in light of the statute of frauds. Common scenarios where the statute of frauds comes into play are with transactions involving real property or agreements where services are not to be performed within one year. The statue of frauds doctrine is contained in Florida Statute s. 725.01:

No action shall be brought whereby to charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer or pay any debt or damages out of her or his own estate, or whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person or to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage, or upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them, or for any lease thereof for a period longer than 1 year, or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof, or whereby to charge any health care provider upon any guarantee, warranty, or assurance as to the results of any medical, surgical, or diagnostic procedure performed by any physician licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, or dentist licensed under chapter 466, unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized.

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

---

Florida's New Pre-Suit Notification Requirement: Retroactive or Prospective Application?

February 05, 2024 — Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Florida’s newly formed Sixth District Court of Appeal (“Sixth DCA”) recently certified conflict with Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal on the issue of retroactive application of the pre-suit notice requirement contained in Florida Statute §627.70152.1 Earlier this year, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) held that the pre-suit notice provision applies retroactively, meaning, it applies to all suits filed after July 1, 2021, regardless when the insurance policy was issued.2 The Sixth DCA, in Hughes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company,3 directly rejected the Fourth DCA’s interpretation and instead found a retroactive application of the pre-suit notice to be unconstitutional under Florida law. Prior to the Fourth DCA’s ruling, most trial courts had found no retroactive application for the pre-suit notice provision.4 In August 2021, shortly after Florida Statutes Section 627.70152 went into effect on July 1, 2021, Rebecca Hughes (“Hughes”) sued Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal Property”) for breach of contract after Universal Property denied her insurance claim. Hughes did not file a pre-suit notice under Section 627.70152. Universal Property moved to dismiss based on Hughes’ failure to file the pre-suit notice, arguing that the pre-suit notice requirement applies to all lawsuits filed after July 1, 2021, even if the claimant’s insurance policy was issued before the statute’s effective date. The trial court agreed with Universal Property and dismissed the lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com

---

2016 Hawaii Legislature Enacts Five Insurance-Related Bills

May 12, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The 2016 Hawaii legislative session passed five insurance-related bills. Bills that have been enacted are the following: HB 260 - The bill establishes motor vehicle insurance requirements for transportation network companies and drivers that will take effect on September 1, 2016. The Insurance Commissioner is directed to examine the effects of this measure on personal motor vehicle insurance policy rates in the State and submit an annual report to the Legislature. The bill will sunset on September 1, 2021. The measure has been transmitted to the Governor for signature. HB 1705 - Electronic insurance cards, in addition to paper cards, are permitted by the bill. The card serves as proof of insurance for motor vehicles and is to be carried in the vehicle at all times. The legislation has been forwarded to the Governor for signature. 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

---

Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

February 24, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Is the enforceability of a no-damage-for-delay provision inappropriate for resolution on a summary judgment? The recent decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Kingston Environmental Services, Inc. v. David Boland, Inc., 2019 WL 6178676 (D. Hawaii 2019), dealing with Florida law, suggests that it is inappropriate for a summary judgment resolution, particularly when there is a right to a jury trial. In this case, a prime contractor was hired on a federal construction project in Hawaii. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor and the subcontractor sued the prime contractor and its surety under the Miller Act. Of interest, the subcontractor was seeking to recover for the costs it incurred due to construction delays. The prime contractor moved for summary judgment as to the no-damage-for-delay provision in the subcontract. The no-damages-for-delay provision read as follows (and it is a well-written no-damage-for-delay provision): The Subcontractor expressly agrees that the Contractor shall not be liable to the Subcontractor for any damages or additional costs, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, resulting in whole or in part from a delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration of the commencement or execution of the Work, caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions, whether negligent or not, of the Contractor including other subcontractors or material suppliers to the Project, its agents, employees, or third parties acting on behalf of the Contractor. The Subcontractor’s sole remedy for any such delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration shall be a noncompensable time extension. 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

---

Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

May 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Denver Business Journal reported that the Colorado Senate Appropriations Committee voted 5-2 to kill SB 219, one of the three construction defect bills introduced by Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, D-Commerce City. SB 219 “would have given the divisions of housing, insurance and law a combined $150,000 to collect data that would shine light on the reasons for the current shortage of owner-occupied affordable housing.” However, the two other construction defect related bills are still alive. SB 216 “would offer financial incentives for building condos worth less than $500,000 and SB 220, would make it more difficult for condo owners to file a class-action lawsuit regarding alleged defects.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stuck on You”

March 04, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A “contract of adhesion” is referred to as a standard form contract – usually preprinted – “prepared by a party of superior bargaining power for adherence or rejection of the weaker party.” Yet, it is not the nature of the contract alone which determines its enforceability, but, instead, “whether a party truly consented to all of the printed terms.” A Louisiana plaintiff fighting a forum selection clause in a construction contract sought to have the clause nullified, urging that the clause was “buried” in the agreement and in small font, arguing also that the contractor had “superior bargaining position at the time of entering into the contract… because [plaintiff] needed to repair the hurricane damage” to his home as soon as possible. In response, the contractor urged that the contract was not executed under rush conditions, and that, in any event, the contract was only two pages long – and the forum selection clause was not hidden and was in the same font as all of the other provisions in the contract. 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

---