Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

September 29, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After suffering business losses due to a hurricane, the insured's Civil Authority claim survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Pathology Lab. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145129 (W.D. La. Aug. 3, 2021). Hurricane Laura devastated Lake Charles, Louisiana causing severe damage to the insured property as well as other properties within a mile of the insured property. All seven electrical transmission line corridors feeding Lake Charles were catastrophically damaged causing an extensive power outage. Government shutdown Orders prohibited the insureds' access to the Lab. The Orders were issued by the respective civil authorities both in anticipation of and as a result of damage and dangerous physical conditions expected from and actually resulting from Hurricane Laura and the continuation thereof. When the hurricane arrived, all businesses that were not essential to the recovery were ordered closed until electricity, water and sewer services were restored. As a result, the Lab was closed from August 27, 2020 toSeptember 8, 2020. The Lab sued for business income under the policy's Civil Authority provisions. Mt. Hawley moved to dismiss. Mt. Hawley argued that the Orders did not by their explicit terms close the Lab's business because closure was entirely dependent on the conditions of the described premises itself and whether it was safe to occupy. Mt. Hawley further argued that the mandatory Evacuation Order was issued in anticipation of property damage and therefore did not trigger coverage under the Civil Authority provision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

CISA Guidance 3.1: Not Much Change for Construction

June 22, 2020 — Laura Bourgeois LoBue - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
This week, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued Version 3.1 of its Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce. For the most part, CISA’s Guidance 3.1 did not change from Version 3.0 as it relates to construction. However, CISA added a few construction-related services to “Essential Critical Infrastructure”:

“Workers who support the construction and maintenance of electric vehicle charging stations.”
“Engineers performing or supporting safety inspections.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Bourgeois LoBue, Pillsbury
Ms. LoBue may be contacted at laura.lobue@pillsburylaw.com

Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

March 16, 2017 — David Cook & Chadd Reynolds - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Blog
In continuing our series on common contract provisions found in construction contracts, this post highlights no-damages-for-delay clauses. Parties to a contract – particularly a construction contract – may agree that the performance of the contract must occur within a set amount of time. When a party is delayed in performing a contract, it may incur additional costs due to the delay. In most circumstances, unless the parties agree otherwise, the delayed party would be entitled to an extension of time to perform the contract. But it may also seek to recover the additional costs resulting from the delay. A no-damages-for-delay clause attempts to prevent the delayed party from recovering those additional costs. In construction contracts, an upstream party, such as an owner or prime contractor, typically relies on a no-damages-for-delay clause when presented with a delay claim by a downstream party, such as a subcontractor. Reprinted courtesy of David Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP and Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Preliminary Notices: Common Avoidable But Fatal Mistakes

August 26, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
In the California building and construction industry, service of a “Preliminary Notice” is a prerequisite for Subcontractor and Supplier claims for payment through the Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice and Payment Bond Claim process. Without proper drafting and service of a Preliminary Notice, these extremely valuable claims cannot be protected. Unfortunately, despite the vital importance of the Preliminary Notice, Subcontractors and Suppliers often make common self-defeating mistakes that make their Preliminary Notice efforts completely ineffective, resulting in loss of their claims rights. The purpose of this article is to list some of these common mistakes in the hope that the reader will avoid such mistakes, preserve the integrity of the Preliminary Notice, and protect the claims rights it makes available: Not Sending out the Preliminary Notice Within 20 Days After Supplying Labor or Materials: The protection of a Preliminary Notice begins 20 days before it sent out. This means that if a Subcontractor or Supplier claimant delivered $100,000 in materials on February 1, that same claimant must serve the Preliminary Notice on or before February 21 (the sooner the better), or the claimant will not be able to pursue an enforceable Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond claim for that $100,000. There are very few exceptions. Best practice: A Subcontractor or Supplier must send out the Preliminary Notice as soon as an agreement to provide work or materials to a California construction project is in place (See California Civil Code 8204). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

October 19, 2017 — William L. Doerler - White and Williams LLP
When the validity of a construction defect claim depends on whether the claim is barred by the applicable state’s statute of repose, it is important to review the statute to identify when claims subject to the statute of repose accrue. In Busch v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 219 So.3d 93 (Fla. Ct. App. (5th Dist.) 2017), the Court of Appeals of Florida clarified the accrual date for the statute of repose in cases where the accrual date depends on a construction contract’s completion date. Pursuant to Busch, the date of full performance under the contract, not the building’s purchase closing date, is the date on which claims accrue. In Busch, Timothy Busch (Busch), pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement, contracted to have Lennar Homes build him a house. Nearly ten years after closing on the home, Busch served Lennar Homes with a notice of construction defects, as required by Florida’s right-to-repair act. Shortly thereafter, but more than 10 years after the home’s closing date, Busch filed suit against Lennar Homes, alleging that there were multiple construction defects associated with the home. Lennar Homes, relying on Florida’s statute of repose, Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c), filed a motion to dismiss Busch’s complaint. 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

Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

September 22, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The policyholder's attempt to extend the duty to defend analysis beyond the complaint's allegations and the four-corners of the policy failed before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Water Well Solutions Service Group Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Co., 2016 Wisc. LEXIS 163 (Wis. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2016). 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

Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

April 18, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

Albert Wolf, a principal in Wolf Slatkin & Madison P. C., has written an interesting article on statutes of limitations in construction defect claims in Colorado. While Wolf states that in most cases, “construction defect claims against construction industry participants (contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, etc.) requires that suits be started within two years after construction defects have been or should have been—in the exercise of reasonable diligence (care)—discovered,” if a project used the AIA General Conditions (AIA Document A2010) before the 2007 edition, the “statutes of limitations begin to run (accrue) at either substantial completion or breach by the contractor (installation of defective work), depending on the circumstances.”

“That’s a huge difference,” Wolf writes in his article. “For example, if the structural defect caused by faulty foundation work is not discovered or discoverable until walls begin to exhibit cracking more than two years after the building is completed, the owner’s claim against the contractor may be barred if the AIA provision is applied.”

Read the full story...

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

Best Lawyers® Recognizes 38 White and Williams Lawyers

September 13, 2021 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is proud to announce that 30 lawyers were recognized in the 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® 2022 and eight were recognized as “Ones to Watch.” Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES