Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Drastic Rebuild Resurrects Graves' Landmark Portland Building

September 14, 2020 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
Fifteen minutes into a 105-minute job interview for the $195-million overhaul of the long-troubled Portland Public Service Building in Oregon’s largest city, owner’s rep Mike Day threw a curve ball to the unwitting design-build team of Howard S. Wright Construction Co. and architect DLR Group. Already hard at work solving Day’s first faux crisis scenario—a budget buster that threatened the viability of the makeover of the notoriously dysfunctional landmark—they had to regroup. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

April 20, 2017 — JT Long - Engineering News-Record
The first wave of new road projects could go out at the beginning of 2018 now that the California legislature has approved $52.4 billion over 10 years from a new 12-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. SB-1 was approved late in the evening on April 6; by April 7, the California Dept. of Transportation was already working on a list of projects that could start construction by summer of 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of JT Long, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

June 10, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has ruled against a couple who sued their lawyer, after they were unhappy with the results of a construction defect case. Craig and Jeanne Petrik sued Mahaffey and Associates for legal malpractice and breach of contract. Their lawyer, Douglas L. Mahaffey, had settled their case for $400,000. The Petricks claimed Mahaffey did not have the authority make an offer to compromise.

In the original case, Mahaffey held back the $400,000 awarded in the settlement until he and the Petricks came to terms on how much of that was owed to Mahaffey. The lower court concluded that the Petricks were due $146,323,18. The jury did not agree with the Petrik’s claim that conditions had been met in which Mahaffey would not be charging them costs.

Judges O’Leary and Ikola wrote the opinion, with the third judge on the panel, Judge Bedworth offering a dissent only on their view of the cost waiver clause.

Read the court’s opinion

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

Is New York Heading for a Construction Defect Boom?

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The New York Times reported that “[t]here is growing concern that some developers are repeating the mistakes of the last housing boom and delivering substandard product.” “My phone is ringing already on projects that were just completed,” Steven D. Sladkus, a Manhattan real estate lawyer who says his firm has dozens of active construction defect cases, told the New York Times. “Uh-oh, here we go again.” Recent data shows a rising trend of building plans in New York: “Last year, the city issued construction permits for 20,300 units of housing, according to the Real Estate Board of New York. And the state attorney general’s office received submissions for 263 offering plans for condo conversions and new construction in 2014, up from 184 in 2011. Those numbers will most likely grow in 2015, encouraged by Mayor Bill de Blasio’s push to build more housing.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018

January 02, 2019 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., David A. Napper, Esq., & Lana Halavi – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Introduction Data breaches and social media hacks are becoming increasingly common stories on the news cycle. Meanwhile, companies have made fortunes on unsuspecting individuals by selling information gathered on the user. Every internet user has wondered why a pop-up ad or banner on an unrelated website relates to something you purchased or searched for "that one time. The California legislature has decided to return some power back to the people with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. California is the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals personal data and could pave the way for other states to follow suit in the near future. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 On June 28, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ("the Act"). The California Legislature eagerly passed the Act, which comes into effect on January 1, 2020, granting broad new privacy rights to "consumers" and enforcing requirements on the protection of their personal data allowing consumers the right to take back control of their personal information. A "consumer" is defined as a "resident of California as defined by California's personal income tax regulations. "Personal information" pursuant to the Act is defined as "information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household." Personal information is generally recognized in California as information that can identify a specific individual. The Act also includes information that can be used to identify a household. Provisions of the Act Pursuant to the Act, consumers are given the right to know upon request if their personal information is disclosed, and to whom it is disclosed, the right to know what personal information has been collected about them by a business, the right to object to the sale of their personal information, the right to obtain data collected about them, the right to require businesses to obliterate their personal information, and the right to be given equal service and pricing from businesses, including equal prices and quality of goods or services. The Act forbids discrimination by businesses against consumers for exercising their privacy rights pursuant to the Act. Businesses are, however, permitted to charge different prices or provide different quality of service to consumers if the difference is "reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data." Additionally, businesses must allow consumers to exercise their rights by providing to consumers toll-free telephone numbers and/or websites to request such information or privacy. If a consumer sends a verified request for information to a business, the business subsequently has 45 days to give the consumer the requested information from the preceding 12 months with no charge to the consumer. Who Must Comply with the Act The Act will apply to for-profit businesses that do business in the State of California, deal with personal information of California residents, and either·(1) have more than $25 million in annual gross revenues, or (2) receive or disclose more than 50,000 California residents' personal information, or(3) derive 50% or greater of California residents' annual revenues from selling their personal information. Who is Exempted from Compliance with the Act A for-profit company, a small company, and/or a company that does not derive large amounts of personal information and does not share a brand with an affiliate covered by the Act is exempted from complying with the Act. Additionally, a company is exempted from compliance with the Act "if every aspect of . . . commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California," meaning: (1) the personal information was collected from the consumer while they were outside California, (2) no sale of their personal information took place in California, and (3) there was no sale of personal information that was collected while the consumer was in California. Impact According to 2017 estimates, California's population totaled approximately 39 million people. Clearly the Act will affect an incredibly large amount of people considering it concerns the most populous state in America. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which is being compared to the EU General Data Protection Regulation for its all-encompassing method and resilient privacy protections is also speculated to have an impact on businesses throughout the nation and around the world. While the costs will likely go up for companies to do business in California, the transparency and trust earned by business and gained by consumers in this new landscape could potential overcome the initial costs to provide these required services. Perhaps most importantly however, is if California consumers decide to take advantage of the new protections, they will no longer have to wonder what for-profit businesses are doing with their data. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, David A. Napper and Lana Halavi Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

March 12, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
I am preparing for a presentation this week on Troublesome Contract Clauses to the Construction Specifications Institute (“CSI”), Nebraska Chapter. One of the clauses we will be discussing is the dreaded Pay-if-Paid clause, a particularly nasty provision that places the risk of owner’s solvency squarely on the subcontractor’s shoulders. While pay-if-paid clauses can create tremendous problems for subcontractors, they are enforceable. Pay-if-Paid clauses eliminate the obligation to pay the subcontractor until the general contractor is paid by the owner. Pay-if-paid clauses usually contain something akin to the following phrases:

payment to subcontractors are “expressly and unequivocally contingent upon receipt of payment from the Owner for the Subcontract Work.”
the subcontractor “expressly acknowledges that it relies on payment under the Subcontract on the creditworthiness of Owner, not that of the General Contractor.”
the owner’s acceptance of the work and payment to the General Contractor are “conditions precedent to any obligation of the General Contractor to pay the subcontractor.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez - CDJ STAFF
According to the Denver Business Journal, Dennis Houston, president and CEO of the Parker Chamber of Commerce in Colorado, spoke at the state’s capitol recently, calling legislators “to make it harder for attorneys to file class-action lawsuits against condominium builders so that areas like his can attract a workforce of millennials.” Houston and other Chamber of Commerce leaders gathered at the capitol “to lobby for sensible energy policies and construction defects reform, among other things.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

A post on the blog of Liberty Building Forensics Group find fault with the New Jersey Home Warranty and Builders’ Registration Act for not being stringent enough. The poster notes the coverage given under the bill. In the first year, builders are responsible to remedy faulty workmanship and materials and major structural defects. While other protections expire in the first or second year, there is a ten year coverage of major construction defects.

The blogger finds fault with the exclusion New Jersey law places on these claims, arguing that “due to the stringent definition of ‘major construction defects,” the warranty affords no coverage unless the house is practically collapsing.” The bill excludes leaks, cracks, and mold, and further limits claims if the homeowner has failed to inform the builder or insurer of defects, failure to maintain the home, and alterations made by the homeowner.

The intent of the New Jersey law is given as “requiring that newly constructed homes conform to certain construction and quality standards as well as to provide buyers of new homes with insurance-backed warranty protection in the event such standards are not met.” It’s argued in the piece that it instead serves to “strip homeowners of any meaningful means of recovery for discovered construction defects.”

Read the full story…