FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

February 01, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents. In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. 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

---

A Court-Side Seat: As SCOTUS Decides Another Regulatory “Takings” Case, a Flurry of Action at EPA

July 19, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
This is a brief account of some of the important environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court decided this regulatory “takings” case, and, in a Per Curium opinion, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that that petitioners had to exhaust their state administrative remedies before they could file this lawsuit under 42 USC Section 1983. The City government had already come to a sufficient regulatory conclusion, and the Constitution does not require additional processing. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit ignored last term’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott. 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

---

U.S. District Court of Colorado Interprets Insurance Policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion and Exception for Ensuing Damage

August 15, 2022 — Carin Ramirez - Colorado Construction Litigation
Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado interpreted a faulty workmanship exclusion in a property insurance policy in The Lodge at Mountain Village Owner Association v. Eighteen Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London, 22 U.S Dist. Ct LEXIS 48883*, decided on March 18, 2022. The Court held that the faulty workmanship exclusion at issue extended to preclude coverage for later ensuing damage that arose from the faulty workmanship, even though the damage was weather related, because faulty workmanship was the primary cause of the ensuing damage. The claims in The Lodge at Mountain Village arose from maintenance work performed on log siding at three multi-unit condominium buildings in Telluride. The maintenance work to the log siding included staining, finishing, and chinking repairs to joints between the logs. About a year after completion of the work, The Lodge at Mountain Village Owners Association (“The Lodge”) notified the maintenance contractor that logs were extremely weathered and that its work was defective. The Lodge retained an expert who prepared a report stating that the log finish and underlying wood was deteriorating because of the contractor’s work and that some areas were not properly protected from exposure to snow, rain, and brine from ice-melting salt. The Lodge pursued and settled its claims against the contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Ramirez may be contacted at ramirez@hhmrlaw.com

---

Don’t Forget to Mediate the Small Stuff

August 02, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I talked mediation here at Construction Law Musings. Those that read regularly (thanks) have likely missed my musings on the topic. Those who read this construction blog regularly also know that I am both a Virginia Supreme Court certified general district court mediator and a huge advocate of mediation as a method to resolve construction disputes. While many of us think of mediation as a method to resolve the major disputes or litigation that occasionally rear their heads in the course of running a construction law practice or construction business, my experience as both a construction attorney and a mediator has taught me something: mediation works for all sizes of cases. As an advocate for my construction clients, I know that proper trial preparation requires the same diligence and attention to detail for a smaller case as it does for a larger case. While a smaller case in the Virginia general district court may not have the depositions, written discovery and motions practice that a Virginia circuit court case may have, it still requires witness preparation, document processing and review and many of the other aspects of a larger case. While construction litigation is never a money maker in the best of circumstances, in the smaller cases the attorney fees often total a larger percentage of the total potential recovery. For this reason, the small cases are almost better suited for a quick mediated resolution than the larger ones. The larger cases may cost more to prosecute or defend, but the fees are less likely to eat up such a large percentage of any recovery. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

October 19, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
You may have thought that a Virginia “Little Miller Act” bond claim, like a mechanic’s lien, could only be brought by those that provide materials and labor incorporated into the construction project. If you did, you aren’t alone. In fact, Safeco Insurance Co. of America, a surety, made exactly the above argument in Yard Works LLC v. GroundDown Constructors LLC. In that case, a debris hauling company failed to pay Yard Works, the company that provided the dumping site for the debris. Yard Works sued pursuant to the Little Miller Act to get paid. In response, the surety sought to have the claim against the payment bond dismissed and argued that because Yard Works did not actually improve the property or provide improvements and that Yard Works only passively provided a dump site, Yard Works could not claim under the payment bond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Haight Welcomes Elizabeth Lawley

September 03, 2015 — Elizabeth W. Lawley – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP welcomes partner Elizabeth W. Lawley. Elizabeth joins Haight’s new Sacramento office in the Construction Law and General Liability Practice Groups. She has extensive experience representing construction companies, contractors, subcontractors, real estate developers and insurers. Among her clients are prestigious national home builders, window manufacturers, roofers, HVAC, tile and masonry contractors. Elizabeth provides exceptional legal services while navigating complex litigation handling and resolution and she adds another layer of top-tier skills to Haight’s existing practice. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP 2485 Natomas Park Drive Suite 450 Sacramento, CA 95833 www.hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elizabeth W. Lawley, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Lawley may be contacted at elawley@hbblaw.com

---

Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

December 09, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Although the insureds disclosed flooding problems in the basement, the buyers purchased their home. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. McInerney, 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 1130 (Ill Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2011). In a supplemental disclosure, the insureds reported that during heavy rains light seepage occurred in the basement.

After moving in, the buyers experienced significant water infiltration and flooding in the basement. The buyers and their children also began to experience mold-related illnesses.

The buyers sued for rescission of the contract or, in the alternative, damages. They alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. In the claim for negligent misrepresentation, the buyers alleged that the insureds carelessly omitted the fact that there were material defects in the basement and foundation when they should have known of such defects.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Burden of Proof Under All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

January 31, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates

A recent Florida case, Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D164a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discusses the burden of proof of an insured in establishing coverage under an all-risk property insurance policy. Getting right to this critical point, the court explained the burden of proof as follows:

1. The insured has the initial burden of proof to establish that the damage at issue occurred during a period in which the damaged property had insurance coverage. If the insured fails to meet this burden, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insurer.

–

2. If the insured’s initial burden is met, the burden of proof shifts to the insurer to establish that (a) there was a sole cause of the loss, or (b) in cases where there was more than one cause, there was an “efficient proximate cause” of the loss.

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

---