Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

January 21, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Continuing with our theme of Ready for 2015, this blog serves as a reminder of your rights and obligations under Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 45-1201-1211. As you may recall, Nebraska’s legislature amended the Prompt Pay Act in 2014. The most significant changes are highlighted below. Attorney’s Fees May be Recovered. The most significant change in the Prompt Pay Act allows contractors to recover damages if they pursue a claim under the Act. And, this is not reciprocal in that the defendant may not recover fees. 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

Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

September 04, 2018 — White and Williams LLP
Twenty White and Williams lawyers were recognized on the 2019 Best Lawyers in America list. 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. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Electrical Subcontractor Sues over Termination

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Millennium Plus, Inc. has sued the contractor for the Efrain A. Duran Water Treatment Plant Facility and Rio Grande City for failing to pay money due to them and terminating the contract. According to the lawsuit, Millennium is claiming that they are owed $161,781 for their work on the water treatment facility. According to the city, the project’s contractor was “very unsatisfied with Millennium’s work.” Although the city disclaims any involvement, Millennium claims it was a “joint enterprise.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

October 12, 2020 — Gregory D. Podolak & Christine Baptiste-Perez - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Late last week, a Missouri federal district court provided a significant victory for insurance policyholders for COVID-19 losses. In Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. MO, So. Div., Aug. 12, 2020), the Court was called upon to decide whether allegations involving the presence of COVID-19 in and around physical structures qualify as “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property. For those actively monitoring the COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation landscape, this has been a central question – and hotly contested debate – in virtually all first-party property and business interruption claims. Through a detailed and well-reasoned discussion, the Court answered the question with an emphatic “Yes.” The Plaintiffs – a proposed class of hair salons and restaurants - purchased “all-risk” property insurance policies (the “Policies”) from Cincinnati. The Policies provide that Cincinnati would pay for “direct ‘loss’ unless the ‘loss’ is excluded or limited.” They also defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The Policies did not contain a virus exclusion. Anecdotally, Cincinnati has been vocal about the general lack of virus exclusions on its standard forms, having recently publicized that the company considers such exclusions “unnecessary” because, in its view, “a virus does not produce direct physical damage or loss to property.” From Cincinnati’s perspective, the insuring agreement is not triggered by these events, so there’s no need to analyze exclusions. Cincinnati relied heavily on that analysis in this case. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Christine Baptiste-Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com Ms. Baptiste-Perez may be contacted at cbp@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

May 04, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
What you contractually agree to matters, particularly when you are deemed a sophisticated entity. This means you can figuratively live or die by the terms and conditions agreed to. Don’t take it from me, but it take it from the Fourth Circuit’s decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Modern Mosaic, Ltd. v. Turner Construction Co., 2019 WL 7174550 (4th Cir. 2019), where the Court started off by stressing, “One of our country’s bedrock principles is the freedom of individuals and entities to enter into contracts and rely that their terms will be enforced.” Id. at *1. This case involved a dispute between a prime contractor and its precast concrete subcontractor on a federal project. The subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. The trial court ruled against the subcontractor based on…the subcontract’s terms! So, yes, what you contractually agree to matters. Example #1 – The subcontractor fabricated and installed precast concrete panels per engineering drawings. However, the parking garage was not built per dimensions meaning the panels it fabricated would not fit. The subcontractor had to perform remedial work on the panels to get them to fit. The subcontractor pursued the prime contractor for these costs arguing the prime contractor should have field verified the dimensions. The problem for the subcontractor, however, was that the subcontract required the subcontractor, not the prime contractor, to field verify the dimensions. Based on this language that required the subcontractor to field verify existing conditions and take field measurements, the subcontractor was not entitled to its remedial costs (and they were close to $1 Million). Furthermore, and of importance, the Court noted that the subcontract contained a flow down provision requiring the subcontractor to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the prime contract and assume those duties and obligations that the prime contractor was to assume towards the owner. While this flow-down provision may often be overlooked, here it was not, as it meant the subcontractor was assuming the field verification duties that the prime contractor was responsible to perform for the owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Avoiding Disaster Due to Improper Licensing

February 18, 2019 — Candace Matson - Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
IT’S NOT ENOUGH FOR A CONTRACTOR TO BE LICENSED . . . it must be properly licensed. We are reminded of this by the recent case of JMS Air Conditioning and Appliance Service, Inc. v. Santa Monica Community College District, Bernards Bros., Inc., 30 Cal. App. 5th 945 (2018). In that case, JMS entered into an $8.2M subcontract with Bernards to install an HVAC system in a new facility being built for the District. JMS held a C-20 warm-air heating, ventilating and air-conditioning license. A year into the project, Bernards sought permission from the District to substitute another subcontractor for JMS (as required under Public Contract Code Section 4107 for listed subcontractors on public works of improvement). Among other things, Bernards contended that JMS was not properly licensed to perform that portion of the work which consisted of hydronic plumbing and hydronic boiler work. JMS countered that this work was an integral part of installing an HVAC system, and relied on Business & Profession Code Section 7059, which permits work that is “incidental and supplemental to the performance of the work for which the specialty contractor is licensed,” and a California State Licensing Board regulation which defines “incidental and supplemental” as meaning “essential to accomplish the work in which the contractor is classified.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, §831.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Sheppard Mullin
Ms. Matson may be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com

Andrea DeField Recognized In 2024 List of Influential Business Women By South Florida Business Journal

February 19, 2024 — Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
We are pleased to announce that Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP insurance coverage partner Andrea DeField was named to the South Florida Business Journal’s 2024 list of Influential Business Women. The award celebrates 25 women who have a strong record of leadership, performance and innovation in their industry, as well as meaningful community involvement. This distinction is well-deserved given Andi’s leadership in the cyber insurance space, contribution to the firm’s pro bono efforts, and longstanding record of community involvement in South Florida. Andi and the other honorees will be featured in the March 15 special issue of the South Florida Business Journal introducing the Influential Business Women of 2024. Congratulations Andi! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

January 11, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Welcome to 2021! As often happens here at Construction Law Musings, the year starts with a few posts on notable construction law cases that dropped in the past year or so. Not only does this review hopefully help you keep up, but helps me keep up with the latest developments (one of the reasons why I keep blogging). The first of these cases is Appalachian Power Co. v. Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. out of the Western District of Virginia federal court. In this case, Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. (“Wagman”) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) contracted for the design and construction of a highway interchange project (the “Project”). Wagman and the Appalachian Power Company (“APCO”) entered into a written contract (the “Written Contract”) for APCO to remove and relocate its utility structures (the “Work”) in order to facilitate construction for the Project. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES