Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

October 30, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s the classic tale of two cities. One city is occupied by architects and engineers. The other, by contractors. And while the cities typically co-exist relatively peacefully together, at times, they do not, such as when a defect arises that can either be a design or construction defect. Sometimes, project owners are pulled into these fights as well. There is a common law rule that when contracting with a contractor the owner impliedly warrants to the contractor that the plans and specifications are sufficiently accurate and correct. And, if you work on local public works projects, you may be familiar with Public Contract Code section 1104 which provides that, with the exception of design-build projects, local public entities cannot require a bidder to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of architectural or engineering plans and specifications. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty

March 05, 2015 — Zainab Fattah – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- A penthouse “overlooking the Queen’s balcony” will cap a London luxury apartment project planned near Buckingham Palace, according to its Abu Dhabi-based owner. The 10,000 square-foot (929 square-meter) apartment at No. 1 Palace St. across the street from the royal residence will probably fetch about 60 million pounds ($92 million), Jassim Alseddiqi, chief executive officer of Abu Dhabi Financial Group LLC, said in an interview in the capital of the United Arab Emirates on Monday. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zainab Fattah, Bloomberg
Ms. Fattah may be contacted at zfattah@bloomberg.net

Watch Your Step – Playing Golf on an Outdoor Course Necessarily Encompasses Risk of Encountering Irregularities in the Ground Surface

May 08, 2023 — Kaitlyn A. Jensen & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On April 27, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Walter Wellsfry, et al. v. Ocean Colony Partners, LLC (A165175, April 27, 2023) affirming summary judgment for a golf course owner on the grounds that the injured golfer’s lawsuit was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. In doing so, the Court of Appeal found that outdoor golfers assume the risks associated with the topographical features of the course, including the risk of stepping on an inconspicuous tree root. Recreational golfer Walter Wellsfry was walking from a tee box back to his golf cart when he allegedly stepped on a small tree root concealed by grass, causing him to fall into his golf cart in immediate pain. The ground consisted of mixed terrain, including a combination of grass, dirt, and sand. The tree root was estimated to be approximately 1.5 inches high by 1.5 inches wide. Believing he may have only sprained an ankle, Wellsfry continued the course and reported the incident to management. He later sued the golf course owner Ocean Colony Partners for negligence, claiming that the tree root was a “hidden obstruction” creating an unreasonable risk of harm to anyone who traversed the area. Reprinted courtesy of Kaitlyn A. Jensen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Jensen may be contacted at kjensen@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

February 06, 2023 — Jason Daniel Feld - Kahana Feld
In the beautiful coastline region along the famous Pacific Coast Highway between Ventura and Santa Barbara rests the small cottage town of La Conchita. With unobstructed ocean views, this community is only 820 feet wide on a narrow strip of land abutting a 590 feet high cliffside bluff. The bluff has a slope of approximately 35 degrees and consists of poorly cemented marine sediments. This is the perfect recipe for constant disaster from a geological perspective and the site of several major landslides that have devastated this community. Geologic evidence indicates that landslides, which are part of the larger Rincon Mountain slides, have been occurring at and near La Conchita for many thousands of years up to the present with reported landslides beginning as early as 1865. In both 1889 and 1909, the Southern Pacific Rail Line running along the coast was inundated. In the 1909 slide, a train was buried. Since that time, other slides have occurred, covering at times cultivated land, roadways, and the community itself. The two most devastating landslides occurred in 1995 and 2005. 1995 Landslide From October 1994-March 1995, there was double the amount of seasonal rainfall for the area – in excess of 30 inches. The slide occurred on March 3, 1995, when surface cracks in the upper part of the slope opened on the hillside, and surface runoff was infiltrating into the subsurface. The heavy rains essentially saturated the slope causing a massive slide. On March 4, 1995, the hill behind La Conchita failed, moving tens of meters in minutes, and buried nine homes with no loss of life. The County of Ventura immediately declared the whole community a Geological Hazard Area, imposing building restrictions on the community to restrict new construction. On March 10, 1995, a subsequent debris flow from a canyon to the northwest damaged five additional houses in the northwestern part of La Conchita. In total, the slide measured approximately 390 feet wide, 1080 feet long and 98 feet deep. The deposit covered approximately 9.9 acres, and the volume was estimated to be approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of sediment. The devastation was immeasurable and the damage to homes, property and infrastructure was in the millions of dollars to repair. Litigation quickly arose following the 1995 slide with seventy-one homeowners suing the La Conchita Ranch Co. in Bateman v. La Conchita Ranch Co. The judge ruled that irrigation was not the major cause of the slide and that the ranch owners were not responsible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana Feld
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com

Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts

February 24, 2020 — Nate Budde - Construction Executive
Anyone who has worked in the construction industry is familiar with the financial risks involved. With thin margins, cash flow issues and the litany of potential claims and damages that can arise, contractors need to be able to manage that risk properly. There is the right way of going about it, and there's a wrong way. Unfortunately, the wrong way (which involves using leverage and shifting risk to other parties) is the more prevalent approach. There are different contractual tactics employed by owners and general contractors alike to shift financial risk to other parties. Why is construction so financially risky? There are a few different reasons there is so much risk involved. First and foremost, the construction payment chain itself is inherently risky. Owners and lenders release project funds and trust that the money will reach everyone on the job. But that can’t happen unless each link in the payment chain passes payment to the next. That's a lot of trust for an industry that's not particularly known for it. Another reason is how construction projects begin. Upfront payment is rare in this industry. This leads to floating the initial costs, extending credit and potentially borrowing money to do so. And those who typically bear this burden, lower-tier subs and suppliers, are the least equipped for that level of risk. Reprinted courtesy of Nate Budde, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Budde may be contacted at nate@levelset.com

New Jersey School Blames Leaks on Construction Defects, May Sue

January 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Carlstadt Board of Education recently commissioned a investigation into the water leaks at Carlstadt Public School. The report has not been released in full, but redacted board minutes make reference to "a lack of waterproofing, drainage and clogged or buried weep holes." The investigation is ongoing and the board's business administrator, Pamela Baxley, states that its "ability to recover damages in potential litigation may be impacted should this information be released prior to the conclusion of their investigation." The building in question opened in April 2007, and the leaking began that October. The contractor has fixed leaks, but further leaks have occurred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Catching Killer Clauses in Contract Negotiations

January 29, 2024 — James T. Dixon - Construction Executive
Risk-management personnel who are in the business of reviewing and negotiating construction contracts have some simple tools at their disposal to make sure their edits are addressing all of the killer risk-shifting clauses in those contracts. One of those is the index to that document. But not all authors of construction contract documents are kind enough to include an exhaustive index in their form agreements. One of the most popular sets of general conditions, the A201 General Conditions published by the American Institute of Architects, includes one that is fairly comprehensive. It identifies the six terms that include a reference to indemnification, for example. On the other end of the spectrum are the innumerable custom forms created by public and private project owners, and these rarely have an index. Even more powerful than an index is the search or find functions that are available in word processing applications and now in Adobe, the publisher of documents in portable document format, more commonly known as PDF. But with PDF documents, one must be careful to make sure the document under review is in fact searchable. Because every letter counts, it is important to have full confidence in the integrity of the search. Reprinted courtesy of James T. Dixon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

October 11, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
We have often discussed payment and performance bonds here at Construction Law Musings, most often in the context of payment bond claims relating to federal and state-owned. construction projects. A late 2020 case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court examined what happens after such a claim, in this case, based upon a developer’s subdivision bonds, is made and negotiations commence between the surety and the claimant. Specifically, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ransgate Corp., et. al. looked at claims for indemnity by a surety and the principal/indemnitors in the event that the Surety settled such a claim. In the Ramsgate case, Surety provided two separate subdivision subcontract bonds to Ramsgate. Pursuant to those bonds and the indemnity clause of its indemnity agreement, the Surety sought reimbursement of its $80,000.00 settlement payment to the local building authority that it paid to resolve what was originally a claim for over $420,000.00 by the City. The project was started in 2002 and after many years of failures to complete (according to the City of Suffolk), the City made its claim for expenses in 2017. Ramsgate claimed that it completed the subdivisions in 2003. 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