Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

How Fort Lauderdale Recovered a Phished $1.2M Police HQ Project Payment

May 13, 2024 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Jan. 25th was a happy day for the city of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., as Mayor Dean Trentalis and Police Chief William Schultz announced in a press conference the recovery of a $1.162-million electronic payment meant for Moss Construction that had been stolen in September via an email phishing fraud. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fourth Circuit Clarifies What Qualifies As “Labor” Under The Miller Act

May 08, 2023 — Jeffrey Hummel - The Construction Seyt
Under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131 et seq., contractors hired to work on federal construction projects are required to furnish payment bonds in order to ensure payment to certain persons that provide labor for the project. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a published decision clarifying the type of work that qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. Elliot Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company (issued April 26, 2023). In that case, the U.S. Department of Defense hired Forney Enterprises (Forney) as the prime contractor on a renovation project at the Pentagon. Forney retained Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) to provide the required Miller Act payment bond. Forney then entered into a subcontract with Elliott Dickson (Dickson), a professional engineer, to work as a project manager on the contract. Dickson primarily supervised labor on the site, but also performed other tasks, including logistical and clerical duties, taking various field measurements, cleaning the worksite, moving tools and materials, and sometimes even watering the concrete himself. Dickson’s work required him to be onsite on a daily basis. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey Hummel, Seyfarth
Mr. Hummel may be contacted at jhummel@seyfarth.com

Denver Airport's Renovator Uncovers Potential Snag

March 04, 2019 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
The renovation of the Great Hall of Denver International Airport’s iconic Jeppesen Terminal, roofed by a series of peaked tensile tents that echo the nearby mountains, has hit a bump. Routine but limited concrete testing of the nearly quarter-century-old terminal’s elevated floor slab, to determine whether the floor could support crane loads, shows the compressive strength of the concrete in certain sections is lower than was specified for the original project, more than 25 years ago. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings

December 02, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit found that the insurer was obligated to pay for siding of a building that was not damaged by hail so that it matched the replaced damaged portions of the siding. Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. 23607 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019). A hail and wind storm damaged buildings owned by Windridge. The storm physically damaged the aluminum siding on the buildings' sought and west sides. Philadelphia Indemnity, Windridge's insurer, contended that it was only required to replace the siding on those sides. Windridge argued that replacement siding that matched the undamaged north and east elevations was no longer available, so Philadelphia had to replace the siding on all four sides of the buildings to that all of the siding matched. Windridge sued and moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that matching was required. The only sensible result was to treat the damage as having occurred to the building's siding as a whole. The policy was a replacement-cost policy. Philadelphia promised to "pay for direct physical 'loss' to 'Covered Property' caused by or resulting from" the storm, with the amount of loss being "the cost to replace the lost or damaged property with other property . . . of comparable material and quality . . . and . . . used for the same purpose." The loss payment provision offered four different measures for loss, leaving Philadelphia free to choose the least expensive: (1) pay the value of the lost or damaged property; (2) pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property; (3) take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality. 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

Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

July 19, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Duarte v. Pacific Specialty Ins. (No. A143828; filed 6/12/17, ord. pub. 6/29/17) a California appeals court held that an insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on its rescission claim because the disputed questions in the insurance application were ambiguous. In Duarte, the insured/owner purchased a tenant-occupied property in Oakland. Several years later the tenant’s daughter moved in, and continued living there after the tenant died. The insured/owner served the daughter with an eviction notice and shortly thereafter applied for Owners, Landlords & Tenants (“OLT”) liability coverage. The tenant/daughter responded to the eviction notice by filing a habitability lawsuit, claiming emotional distress and physical injury, among other things. The insurer denied coverage and a defense, drawing a bad faith lawsuit for failure to defend and “wrongful cancellation” of the policy. The insurer answered and raised rescission as an affirmative defense, based on alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the OLT policy application. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Texas Legislative Update

July 19, 2017 — Matthew S.C. Moore & Justin (JD) D. Holzeauser – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The marquee fight between Lt. Governor Patrick and Speaker Straus, otherwise known as the 85th Regular Legislative Session, concluded on May 29, 2017. While the political clash over the controversial “bathroom bill” will continue during the special legislative session, this article is intended to provide a brief summary of the construction-related bills that passed during the regular session and a few notable ones that did not pass. A special session has been called by Governor Abbott, but no construction-related bills were included on the agenda. What Passed? HB 2121 – Attorney’s fees for state breach of contract claims. A contractor who prevails on a state breach of contract claim pursuant to Chapter 2260 of the Government Code, that is also valued at less than $250,000.00, may recover attorney’s fees. By using the word “may”, the bill implies that the award of attorney’s fees will be at the discretion of the administrative law judge. This bill became law on June 15, 2017. HB 1463 – Right to cure ADA violations. A person with a disability may assert a claim for discrimination based on a violation of the building and architectural standards established in Chapter 469 of the Government Code. However, this bill requires the claimant to provide the respondent written notice at least sixty (60) days before filing an action for the violation and further gives the respondent an opportunity to cure the alleged violation within the sixty (60) day period. The obvious benefit of this bill is that it allows the respondent, e.g., the owner or potentially the contractor, an opportunity to remediate the violation without incurring litigation costs. This bill becomes effective law on September 1, 2017. Reprinted courtesy of Matthew S.C. Moore, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Justin (JD) D. Holzeauser, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Moore may be contacted at mmoore@pecklaw.com Mr. Holzheauser may be contacted at jdholzheauser@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

October 03, 2022 — Michael Bignold - Construction Executive
Sales are important for construction companies that want to succeed. However, while companies certainly need to spend time on sales and marketing, having a full order book is only part of the equation. They still need to do the work and, even more importantly, they need to be able to collect payment from customers. Here are common payment issues in the construction industry and what leaders can do to prevent or mitigate them. 1. Change Order Disputes If a project goes exactly as planned and quoted, billing the customer is a fairly simple matter. However, it’s very rare that any job goes exactly according to the quote in the construction business. Change orders, omissions and additions are typical on jobs of any size across the industry. If contractors are not handling those changes properly by getting everything in writing, they could be in trouble when the time comes to send invoices. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Bignold, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The New Jersey Law Journal reported that the New Jersey Supreme Court has rejected a rule that would have required “laboratory analysts who prepare forensic reports in criminal cases be available for cross-examination at trial.” The court stated that “requiring every analyst who was involved in the testing to be available for questioning by the defense was not required by the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and that doing so would create ‘practical drawbacks that range from moderate to severe.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES