Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule: Are Contractors Aware of It?

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Remodeling Magazine reported recently that some remodelers are unaware of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule despite that it took effect back in April of 2010. “There are still quite a few remodelers who have never heard of RRP,” Mark Schlager, president of Access Training Services, an EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) trainer in Pennsauken, N.J. told Remodeling Magazine. According to the article, “The RRP rule applies to homes, apartments, and child-occupied commercial facilities built before 1978.” There are two RRP certifications required on every job: “a “Firm” certification for the company that contracts to do the work, and a “Renovator” certification for the person overseeing the work. A solo operator needs both certifications, which are good for five years.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

November 17, 2016 — Richard H. Herold – Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Franchise & High Properties, LLC v. Happy’s Franchise, LLC, a 2015 decision issued by the Court of Appeals in Michigan, the franchisor, Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, signed a five-year lease for the commercial space to be occupied by its franchisee, Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc. The franchisor did so to secure a right of first refusal to purchase the property and to enforce the franchise agreement to have the lease assigned to the franchisor if the franchisee defaulted. The issue in the case was whether the term “tenant” referred solely to Happy’s Pizza #19 or whether it also included Happy’s Franchise as a co-tenant. “Tenant” was defined as follows: “Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc., 29102 Telegraph Road, Suite 607, Southfield, MI 48034, the lessee, and Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as `Franchisor’), hereinafter designated as the Tenant.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Real Estate Litigation Blog
Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com

The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors

June 10, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
You can feel the buzz here in the Bay Area as the Golden State Warriors enter Game 4 of the NBA Playoffs following a 35 point upset over the Houston Rockets on Saturday, and a chance tonight to sweep the series and head to the NBA Finals for the first time since 1975. Formerly the Philadelphia Warriors from 1946 to 1962, and later the San Francisco Warriors from 1962 to 1971, the Golden State Warriors have played in Oakland’s currently named Oracle Arena since 1966 (except for one year when they played in San Jose while the Oracle Arena was being remodeled). Starting next year, however, construction will begin on the Warriors’ new stadium in the Mission Bay area of San Francisco with completion scheduled for the 2018-2019 season. Although details are just emerging – and even the conceptual plans have changed after some said that the initial design looked like a toilet – here’s the 411 we know on the new 415 location of the Warriors:

The cost of the new arena is estimated to be $1 billion.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

After seeing their $1 million jury award overturned on appeal by a judge who called the award “against the weight of evidence and likely due to misapprehension, confusion or passion,” Kathryn and Christian Culley are seeking to have him removed from the case. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has rejected their claim.

The Culleys claim that Judge Thomas R. Murtagh’s decision was influence by him membership in the Andover Country Club which is represented by the opposing counsel in their construction defect case. Justice Margot G. Botsford had denied the Culley’s request, ruling that they had other remedies available to them.

The SJC noted in their ruling that if the Culleys are alleging judicial misconduct a request must be made to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Their lawyer plans to file a new motion for recusal with the SJC.

Read the full story…

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

Changes To Commercial Item Contracting

May 29, 2023 — Marcos R. Gonzalez - ConsensusDocs
The FAR Council has recently published two changes to commercial item contracting that clarify the definition of commercial services and simplify commercial item determinations (“CIDs”) for contracting officers (“COs”). Since the 1990s, the federal government has encouraged the purchase of commercial items to ease the regulatory burden on vendors who have not previously conducted federal business, encourage innovation, and lower prices[1]. These different objectives (cost savings, broadening markets, innovation) often have corollary policies; for example, vendors who are not accustomed to the regulatory burdens of government business are encouraged to enter the market by being exempted from a slew of regulations (found in standard commercial items clause FAR 52.212-4). As a result, the regulations applicable to commercial item contracting are those required by statute and executive orders in addition to generic commercial terms that may be tailored due to potential variation in commercial terms.[2] Commercial Products v. Commercial Services The first change, in effect since November 2021 pursuant to the 2019 National Defense Authorization (“NDAA”), split the old definition of “commercial item” into two separate definitions: “commercial product” and “commercial service.”[3] We are now blessed with the following definitions of commercial products and services, respectively: Commercial product means— (1) A product, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by nongovernmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes, and– (i) Has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or (ii) Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public; Reprinted courtesy of Marcos R. Gonzalez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Gonzalez may be contacted at mgonzalez@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

October 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit held there is a duty to defend not only a PRP letter issued by the EPA, but also a section 104 (e) letter. Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2013). The insured received two letters from the EPA notifying it of potential liability under CERCLA for environmental contamination of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The first letter was received in January 2008, and stated that the EPA sought the insured's cooperation in its investigation of the release of hazardous substances at the site. The letter enclosed an extensive, 82-question "Information Request" seeking information about the insured's current and former activities at the site. The letter informed the insured that its voluntary cooperation was sought, but compliance with the Information Request was required by law and failure to respond could result in an enforcement action and civil penalties of $32,500 per day. The insured tendered the 104 (e) letter to St. Paul and requested a defense and indemnity pursuant to the CGL policy. St. Paul declined to provide a defense because the letter did not constitute a "suit," which was required by the policy to trigger the duty to defend. The second letter from the EPA, received in November 2009, was entitled "General Notice Letter for the Portland Superfund Site" and notified the insured that it was a "potentially responsible party ("PRP"). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Sudden Death”

October 17, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
It’s not football, though. Rather, just when you thought it was safe in Louisiana to wait to file a garden-variety construction contract payment claim, an appellate court slams the door on it – applying a statute of “repose” to your claim. “Personal actions” – such as an action on contract – are generally subject in Louisiana to a 10-year “liberative prescription,” the applicable statute of limitations pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code article 3499. Like some other states, Louisiana has a statute of “repose” – imposing “peremption” rather than prescription for claims having to do with construction projects – limiting those claims (generally speaking) to five years post-completion. Like other statutes of “repose,” Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2772 provides that claims on construction projects may not be filed after five years, a duration which is not subject to interruption or extension. 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

Slow Down?

December 03, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Absolutely not, said the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal to a masonry subcontractor being sued for allegedly improperly refusing to honor a subcontract bid. A general contractor preparing its overall bid for a public project in Jefferson Parish relied in the process on the defendant masonry subcontractor’s bid. After a public bid process and receiving the award of the project, the general contractor was informed by the subcontractor that it believed that the unit price form that had been supplied to the sub “contained inaccuracies.” Notwithstanding offers by the GC to endeavor to address the purported “inaccuracies” during the project, most likely by a change order, the subcontractor refused to execute its subcontract. The general contractor then awarded the masonry work to another subcontractor for $368,222 more than the original sub’s bid. The GC filed suit – for recovery of $368,222 – against the defendant subcontractor during the course of the public project. The defendant sub objected, arguing to the court that the lawsuit was “premature.” At the heart of the prematurity argument: the sub urging that the general contractor filed suit before its right to recover damages had accrued. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES