Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Nate Budde on the Construction Payment Blog, discussed the potential of mechanics liens, and the pitfalls that occur when not all necessary parties are named. Budde analyzed the case Johnson Controls Inc. v. Norair Eng’g Corp. that involved a “claimant’s failure to name all the necessary parties in his claim against a bond,” resulting “in the claimant losing his claim against the bond, and with it, an opportunity to get paid.” Budde concluded, “Unfortunately, as was the case here, when the bond claim is not handled correctly procedurally, a party can be left with no recourse for payment. It’s important to understand which of the parties involved should be named in both mechanics lien claims and bond claims.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

More Clear, But Not Yet Crystal: Virginia Amends its Prompt Payment Law and Legislation Banning “Pay-If-Paid Clauses in Construction Contracts Effective July 1, 2023

November 16, 2023 — Hanna Lee Blake - ConsensusDocs
The Virginia General Assembly has joined a minority of jurisdictions that ban pay-if-paid clauses in construction contracts on public and private projects. Senate Bill 550 went into effect applying to contracts executed after January 1, 2023, and most recently has been amended effective July 1, 2023. This update highlights the recent amendments to Virginia’s prohibition against pay-if-paid provisions, of which owners and contractors should be aware to ensure that their contracts comply with developing law in the Commonwealth. Recap on Senate Bill 550 On April 27, 2022, the Virginia General Assembly passed Senate Bill 550, which amended Virginia Code §§ 2.2-4354 and 11-4.6, which govern both public and private sector contracts. In short, SB 550 (as the bill is commonly known) prohibited pay-if-paid clauses, and established fixed deadlines for the payment of invoices on private projects. Previously, Virginia’s Prompt Payment Act only applied to public projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hanna Lee Blake, Watt Tieder
Ms. Blake may be contacted at hblake@watttieder.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “This Is Sufficient for Your Purposes …”

April 08, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
… but just barely. Federal courts are “notice” pleading courts. One source writes: “Notice pleading refers to pleading standards that merely notify the opposing party and court of the general issues in the case. In contrast to fact pleading standards, notice pleading standards do not require pleadings to include hyper-detailed facts in support of each claim.” Some state courts – including Louisiana – are fact pleading courts. Ordinarily, no one practicing in Louisiana state courts would describe the fact pleading requirements for initiating a lawsuit as mandating “hyper-detailing” of the facts, but … why risk it? In a construction mechanics lien case – the jurisprudence for which requires that courts strictly construe the related law because liens empower lien holders with rights which are “in derogation” of common property ownership rights – the defendant was successful in having the trial court dismiss a lien suit for failing to affirmatively set forth in the complaint (a “petition” in Louisiana) the date of substantial completion. The lien claimant appealed. 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

Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

June 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
rime contracts typically contain a constructive change directive clause. A constructive change directive also goes by the acronym CCD (and for purposes of this article, such changes will be referred to as a CCD), however it can also be known as a Work Change Directive, Interim Directed Change, or Directed Change, depending on the type of contract beign utilized. An owner can order a CCD, versus issuing the contractor a formalized change order, as a mechanism to direct the prime contractor to perform work if there is a dispute as to contract amount, time, or scope. Just because an owner issues a CCD does not mean the owner is conceding that it owes the contractor a change order. Rather, the owner is ordering the CCD as a mechanism to keep the project moving forward notwithstanding a disagreement with the contractor as to the price or time impact. Standard form construction agreements such as the AIA, EJCDC, or ConsensusDocs, will have a standard provision dealing with change directives where the owner can order the contractor to proceed with work in the absence of a change order. In the federal government context, most construction contracts will contain a changes clause that authorizes the government to formally direct changes; and, there is authority for contractors to equitably pursue a constructive change based on certain directives or instructions issued by the government. Naturally, from the contractor’s perspective, this CCD provision is an important consideration as it could likely require the contractor to finance a change to the owner’s project, particularly if there is a scope dispute where the owner does not believe the contractor is entitled to any change order. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal court in Colorado recently applied the business risk exclusion to a construction defect case. Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law discuss this in Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly. The court found that the business risk exclusion barred coverage for an underlying construction defect. In the construction defect case, the Creek Side at Parker homeowners association sued the developer and builder. One such alleged defect was that “the plumbing contractor’s faulty installation of sewer and water lines damaged the lines themselves, caused surrounding asphalt and concrete to crack and deteriorate, and resulted in water intrusion.” The court concluded that this damage to non-defective work was an occurrence, but the exclusion in the contract covered only property damage that occurred “while the work is ongoing.” The court concluded that the business risk exclusion barred coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Warning! Danger Ahead for Public Entities

July 30, 2019 — Michael J. Baker - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction Blog
Public entities are known to assert False Claims actions “to up the ante” to intimidate and aggressively address contractor construction claims. This strategy in the case of John Ross of Industrial Sheet Metal, Inc. (JRI) V. City of Los Angeles Department of Airports (LAWA), 29 Cal. App. 5th 378 (2018), backfired on the public entity, LAWA, in a big way and should serve as a warning to public entities about expanding claims to include False Claim actions. In this case, LAWA was awarded $1 in contract damages, its California False Claims Act (CFCA) claim was rejected by the jury as were JRI’s claims against LAWA. Despite losing on the substantive contract claims, the trial court found that JRI “prevailed in the action” under the relevant CFCA fee provision, Government Code 12652, subd. (g)(9)(B), regardless of JRI’s failure to prevail in the action as a whole. The California Appellate Court (hereinafter “Court”) affirmed the trial court’s finding. The CFCA is analogous to the federal False Claims Act (FFCA; 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.). Since the CFCA is patterned on similar federal legislation, it was appropriate for the Court to look to precedent construing this similar federal act in interpreting the CFCA provisions. Accordingly, the Court looked at the False Claims Act cases for guidance in upholding the trial court’s decision in its determination that JRI was the “prevailing party” for determining an attorney’s fees award against LAWA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Baker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Baker may be contacted at mjbaker@swlaw.com

Two Injured in Walkway Collapse of Detroit Apartment Complex

May 30, 2018 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
ABC WXYZ Local News reported that a balcony collapsed at the Anthoes Garden Apartments in Detroit, Michigan. Two people were witnessed falling from the upper walkway through the second and third floors, landing on the cement, sidewalk below. Neighbors pulled the thirty-something woman out of the debris, but the sixty-something man remained trapped under cement chunks and told the rescuers that he could not breathe. The neighbors used car jacks to raise the cement blocks to relieve pressure while waiting for help to arrive. Firefighters rescued residents from the apartments. The fire marshall condemned the building. However, according to ABC News, "people who live in apartments nearby are afraid to leave because of the walkway's instability." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Buyer Beware: Insurance Agents May Have No Duty to Sell Construction Contractors an Insurance Policy Covering Likely Claims

May 20, 2024 — David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Construction contractors in the market for insurance coverage have few legal protections if their insurance agent fails to provide insurance that covers likely claims against the contractor. As construction defect lawsuits continue to be a frequent occurrence throughout Colorado, we have seen an increase in the number and complexity of coverage endorsements and exclusions in insurance policies. Some of these exclusions result in insurance policies that are essentially useless to the contractor who purchased them. For example, we have seen dirt work contractors with earth movement exclusions or an earth movement sublimit that turns their $2 million policy into a $100,000 policy. We have seen contractors who primarily build tract homes in subdivisions with tract home exclusions. We have seen general contractors whose policies state that every subcontractor must name the contractor as an additional insured or else the general contactor’s policy converts from a seven-figure policy to a five-figure policy with eroding limits (meaning that the attorney’s fees, expert fees, and litigation costs reduce the coverage limits). The list goes on and leads to an unfortunately high number of contractors who pay significant sums for their insurance policies, finding themselves uninsured or underinsured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES