Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

"Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

May 16, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Tennessee Court of Appeals found that the insured was entitled to coverage under the policy's "ordinance or law" provision for repairs to prevent a future collapse of both the damaged and undamaged portions of the building. Jefferson Cnty. Schools v. Tenn. Risk Mgmt. Trust, 2018 Tenn. app. LEXIS 138 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 15, 2018). A major rainstorm caused a portion of Building 8, an aging vocation building at a high school, to collapse. Building 8 was covered through Tennessee Risk Management up to $100,000. Excess claims were covered by Travelers Indemnity Company. The policy included an "ordinance or law" provision providing for coverage of expenses "caused by the enforcement of any ordinance or law." Further, the insurer agreed to pay for the loss to any undamaged portions of a building caused by the enforcement of any ordinance or law that required the construction or repair of buildings. 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

Low Interest Rates Encourages Homeowners to become Landlords

June 18, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
CNN Money reported that more homeowners are deciding to keep their homes rather than sell, and become landlords instead. "Clients tell us all the time, 'We're never going to sell our home, even after we buy a new one,'" Glenn Kelman, CEO of the brokerage, Redfin, told CNN Money. “The math works in most landlords' favor these days,” according to CNN Money. “Rents have risen by about 20% nationwide since mid-2006, the housing bubble peak, while home prices are still about 21% below what they were at that time.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Medical Center Builder Sues Contracting Agent, Citing Costly Delays

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Pennsylvania firm Bedwell Co. “has sued the Camden County Improvement Authority, saying it is owed $4.6 million for construction of [the Cooper Medical School of Rowan University]” in Camden, New Jersey, according to the Courier-Post. The Bedwell Co. alleges that its expenses exceeded fifty million, “but that it has been paid only $46 million.” The lawsuit states, as quoted by the Courier-Post, “From its inception, the project was plagued by delays due to defects in the design document and other circumstances that were beyond Bedwell’s control.” Furthermore, there were “an abnormally large quantity of design changes, schedule disputes, schedule disruptions and work-activity interference.” “Representatives of the CCIA and HDR could not be reached for comment Wednesday,” according to the Courier-Post. “Bedwell declined to comment on the allegations in the suit.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The “Program Accessibility” Exception for Public Entities Under the ADA

September 10, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Public owners, as well as private owners and tenants of commercial and retail properties, are at risk of lawsuits brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and related state law alleging that their facilities are not accessible by those with disabilities. A common misperception among private owners and tenants is that facilities constructed before the ADA went into effect in 1992 are exempt or “grandfathered” from the ADA’s requirements. Not so. At least generally. If, however, you are a public entity, there is such an exception. Lucky you. Under the ADA, public facilities constructed prior to January 26, 1992 need not be “accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities” so long as a public entity’s “service[s], program[s] and activit[ies], when viewed in [their] entirety, [are] readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” Known as “program accessibility,” the exception has left many public entities scratching their heads as to what they can and must do. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

Environmental Justice Update: The Justice40 Initiative

April 29, 2024 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Soon after taking office, President Biden issued Executive Order 14008, entitled, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.” This is an unusually long and complex executive order and includes many provisions relating to environmental justice and the plight of “disadvantaged communities” that are overwhelmed by many environmental threats. Section 223 of the Order describes the President’s “Justice40 Initiative,” which is designed to ensure that 40% of Federal benefits flow to disadvantaged communities through an “all of government approach.” There is a recognition that some disadvantaged communities lack the personnel and resources to take advantage of this Initiative, so technical training funds will be made available. The Order establishes new offices throughout the Federal bureaucracy to handle and expedite environmental justice matters. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) play a large role in implementing the Initiative by issuing appropriate guidance and assisting the Federal agencies to locate, among the thousands of programs they supervise, suitable programs that will assist disadvantaged communities. At last count, 518 Federal programs administered by 19 distinct Federal agencies could be a good source for the resources needed by disadvantaged communities to cope with air and water pollution and solid waste issues. Direct grants will be made in many cases, and other programs require the community to apply for the funds promised by the Executive Order. In addition, the Order requires participating Federal agencies to assess the value and effectiveness of the benefits bestowed. OMB and the CEQ have issued guidance documents and conducted many meetings with key personnel and members of the disadvantaged communities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

April 20, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed. The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . . Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200). 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

Keep Your Construction Claims Alive in Crazy Economic Times

May 25, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Coronavirus is dominating the news. Construction in Virginia is facing what is at best an uncertain future and at worst a series of large scale shutdowns due to COVID-19. The number of cases seem to grow almost exponentially on a daily basis while states and the federal government try and patch together a solution. All of this adds up to the possibility that owners and other construction related businesses could shutter and importantly payment streams can slow or dry up. Aside from keeping your contractual terms in mind and meeting the notice deadlines found in your contract, these uncertain economic times require you to be aware of the claims process. Along with whatever claims process is set out in the contract and your run of the mill breach of contract through non-payment type claims, in times like this payment bond and mechanic’s lien claims are a key way to protect your payment interest. The law has differing requirements for each of these unique types of payment claims. Mechanic’s liens are technical and statute based with very picky requirements. The form and content of a memorandum of lien will be strictly read and in most cases form will trump substance. Further, among other requirements best discussed with a Virginia construction lawyer, you must keep in mind two numbers, 90 and 150. The 90 days is the amount of time that you have in which to record a lien. This deadline is generally calculated from the last date of work (or possibly the last day of the last month in which you did work). File after this deadline and your lien will be invalid because the right to record a lien has expired. The 150 days is a look back from the last day of work or the date of lien filing, whichever is sooner in time. The 150 days applies to the work that can be captured in the lien. In other words, it dictates the amount of the lien. 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

Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

February 27, 2019 — CDJ STAFF
On October 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) issued a decision which reversed an award of prevailing party attorneys’ fees to performance bond sureties in their dispute with a contractor arising from the contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. Had the lower court’s decision been affirmed, the performance bond sureties would have been able to recover prevailing party attorneys’ fees against the contractor even though they were not parties to the underlying subcontract and the subcontract did not contain a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision. The underlying case is complicated and arose from the construction of Brickell CityCentre in Miami. Americaribe-Moriarty JV (the “Contractor”) asserted a claim against a performance bond procured by a defaulted subcontractor and issued by International Fidelity Insurance Company and Allegheny Casualty Company (collectively, the “Sureties”). The Sureties filed a declaratory judgment action against the Contractor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “District Court”), seeking a declaration that the Contractor failed to perfect its claim against the performance bond. Reprinted courtesy of Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson and K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES