FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

May 10, 2017 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
What law governs a deficiency action if the choice-of-law provisions in the note and deed of trust conflict? The Arizona Court of Appeals answered that very question in ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0071 (Ct. App. April 15, 2017). It turns out, the note controls. The Facts In ZB, ZB, N.A. (ZB), a Utah bank, lent money to the Hoellers to purchase a commercial property in Missouri. The note included a choice-of-law provision stating that Utah law governed the debt. The deed of trust securing the commercial property, however, provided that Missouri law controlled “procedural matters related to the perfection and enforcement of [ZB’s] rights and remedies against the [p]roperty.” In 2012, the Hoellers defaulted, and the bank recovered the property through a trustee’s sale. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

---

Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

November 04, 2019 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements. The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes. With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:

• The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
  • The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
  • A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
  • Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
  Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
  Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

  ---

  That Boilerplate Language May Just Land You in Hot Water

  December 17, 2015 — Kevin Brodehl – California Construction Law Blog
  The following post originally appeared in my partnerKevin Brodehl‘s informative blog, Money and Dirt. If you’re involved in real estate investment, development and/or secured lending in California, it’s a must read. While Kevin’s post below discusses a case involving a real estate purchase agreement, it applies equally to construction contracts, perhaps even more so, since I can’t think of any other type of contract in which indemnity and integration clauses are as common, or as integral. Almost all real estate purchase and sale agreements contain provisions relating to integration and indemnity. In the “boilerplate” worldview, these provisions are standard, generic, and basically all the same — integration clauses prohibit extrinsic evidence that would contradict the terms of the agreement, and indemnity clauses force the seller to protect the buyer from third party claims arising after closing. But a recently published opinion by the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division Three in Santa Ana) — Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grunman Systems Corp. — clarifies that integration and indemnity clauses can have vastly different effects depending on how they are drafted. Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Brodehl, California Construction Law Blog
  Mr. Brodehl may be contacted at kbrodehl@wendel.com

  ---

  Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?

  August 10, 2020 — Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski & Austin F. Smith - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
  In Horne v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (No. B299605, filed 6/10/2020 ord. publ. 6/10/2020), Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against Defendant Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern”) arising out of the fatal incident involving Ruben Dickerson (“decedent”), while employed by independent contractor 24-Hour Tire Service, Inc. Decedent was ultimately crushed on Ahern Rentals, Inc.’s property when a forklift that was improperly placed on uneven ground collapsed as decedent laid under the raised forklift as he performed tire maintenance. Plaintiffs’ suit would normally be barred by the Privette line of decisions which arise out of the foundational principle that an independent contractor’s hirer presumptively delegates to the contractor its tort law duty to provide a safe workplace for the contractor’s employees. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette).) The Privette rule is subject to a number of exceptions including the “peculiar risk” exception, the “nondelegable duty” exception and the “affirmative contribution” exception. (See Privette, supra.) Here, Plaintiffs’ claimed that their suit against Ahern arose out of the “affirmative contribution” exception to Privette as defined by Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202 (Hooker). Hooker allows suits otherwise barred by Privette to go forward if the hirer of the independent contractor “exercised control over safety conditions at the worksite in a way that affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injuries.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski and Austin F. Smith Ms. Arbucci may be contacted at carbucci@hbblaw.com Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at pdubrawski@hbblaw.com Mr. Smith may be contacted at asmith@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of
  

  ---

  Strategic Communication Considerations for Contractors Regarding COVID-19

  April 06, 2020 — Sarah Skidmore - Construction Executive
  The COVID-19 is a worldwide wildcard. Around the globe, organizations are forced to communicate with a wide variety of audiences. Audiences range from employees to customers and vendors—and more. A pandemic of this nature is new for the modern globalized workforce. Societies realize the breadth of international influence involved in a single supply chain now more than ever before. Domestically based organizations realize their place in the larger global system—and the construction industry is a perfect example. Here are key questions for leaders to ponder. 1. Who are your audience groups? In a wildcard situation, organizations are often tasked with communicating to many different audience groups and stakeholders. So, take some time to think beyond the groups that come top-of-mind such as customers, vendors, partners and owners.
  • Does the organization have any community-based events on the calendar?
  • Does the organization have professional development sessions on the calendar?
  • Does the organization have planned maintenance or facilities work scheduled with third parties?
  • Does the organization have interns or apprenticeship programs with local colleges?
  Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Skidmore, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of
  Ms. Skidmore may be contacted at sarah@skidmore-consulting.com

  ---

  No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

  May 16, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
  The court determined the insurer had no duty to defend construction defect claims asserted against the insured. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. River City Roofing, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38226 (E.D. Va. March 3, 2022). Branch Builds, Inc, was the general contractor for Shock Valley View Genesis, LLC ("Genesis") in charge of constructing apartments. River City Roofing was a subcontractor for all roofing, aluminum and composition siding at the project. River City contracted and warranted its materials and work, agreed to indemnify Branch, and agreed to make Branch an additional insured under its CGL policy. After completion of the project, Genesis reported defects in the construction. The roof, aluminum and composition siding allowed water intrusion and property damage to the apartments. Branch repaired and compensated Genesis for all damage done to the apartments. Branch then sued River City and another subcontractor and demanded judgment of $3,000,000. 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

  ---

  House Committee Kills Colorado's 2015 Attainable Housing Bill

  May 07, 2015 — Derek Lindenschmidt – Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
  Senate Bill 177, the Colorado housing community’s effort to reinvigorate the construction of attainable multi-family housing and quell construction defect lawsuits, was killed by the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on Monday evening on a party-line vote. Although the bill received significant bipartisan support in the Senate, a broad coalition of municipalities, builders, contractors, and non-profit organizations was unable to convince a pre-determined “kill” committee of the merits and benefits of the bill. Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lindenschmidt, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
  Mr. Lindenschmidt may be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

  ---

  NYC Airports Get $500,000 Makeover Contest From Cuomo

  October 22, 2014 — Freeman Klopott and Allyson Versprille – Bloomberg
  Governor Andrew Cuomo is holding a competition for plans to upgrade New York City’s two airports, which consistently rank as the worst in the U.S. for design, cleanliness and delays. Cuomo announced the $500,000 design contest for John F. Kennedy International and LaGuardia airports at a press briefing in Queens with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who in February caused a stir when he likened LaGuardia to a facility in a third-world country. “This is the next phase for New York,” Cuomo said today at Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology in Flushing, home of LaGuardia. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the airports, is allocating $8 billion to construction at the two facilities and Newark-Liberty International over the next 10 years. That includes $2.2 billion as part of a $3.6 billion redesign of LaGuardia’s 50-year-old central terminal, voted America’s dirtiest and most poorly designed by readers of Travel & Leisure magazine in 2012. Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net; Ms. Versprille may be contacted at aversprille1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Freeman Klopott and Allyson Versprille, Bloomberg
  

  ---