FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New York Revises Retainage Requirements for Private Construction Contracts: Overview of the “5% Retainage Law”

January 22, 2024 — Levi W. Barrett, Patrick T. Murray, Skyler L. Santomartino & Mark A. Snyder - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
On November 17, 2023, the State of New York enacted the “5% Retainage Law.” This legislation effectively limits the amount of retainage that can be held from general contractors and subcontractors to no more than 5%. It applies to many but not all construction contracts. In addition, the new law revises late stage billing requirements, enabling contractors to invoice for retainage at substantial completion. Previously, the parties to a construction contract were free to negotiate any retainage amount, limited only by an unspecified “reasonable amount” that would be released as the parties contractually set forth. Summary The new law amends Sections 756-a and 756-c of the General Business Law (part of Article 35E of the GBL, known as the “Prompt Pay Act”), and applies to private construction contracts “where the aggregate cost of the construction project, including all labor, services, materials and equipment to be furnished, equals or exceeds one hundred fifty thousand dollars.” Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled in Ball v. Friese Construction Co., finding that Mr. Ball’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Mr. Ball hired Friese Construction Company to build a single-family home. The sale was completed on March 29, 2001. That December, Mr. Ball complained of cracks in the basement floor. SCI Engineering, n engineering firm, hired by Friese, determined that the home’s footing had settled and recommended that Mr. Ball hire a structural engineer to determine if the footings were properly designed and sized. In September 2002, the structural engineer, Strain Engineering, determined that the cracks were due to slab movement, caused in part by water beneath the slab, recommending measures to move water away from the foundation. In 2005, Mr. Ball sent Friese correspondence “detailing issues he was having with the home, including problems with the basement slab, chimney structure, drywall tape, and doors.” All of these were attributed to the foundation problems. In 2006, Friese stated that the slab movement was due to Ball’s failure to maintain the storm water drains.

In 2009, Ball received a report from GeoTest “stating the house was resting on highly plastic clay soils.” He sued Friese in May, 2010. Friese was granted a summary judgment dismissing the suit, as the Missouri has a five-year statute of limitations. Ball appealed on the grounds that the extent of the damage could not be determined until after the third expert report. The appeals court rejected this claim, noting that a reasonable person would have concluded that after the conclusion of SCI and Strain Engineering that “injury and substantial damages may have occurred.”

The court concluded that as there were not “continuing wrongs causing new and distinct damages,” he should have filed his lawsuit after the first two expert reports, not waiting seven years for a third expert to opine.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

June 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

One June 27, the US Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal from Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent had appealed a summary judgment granted to Titan Construction Company.



Titan Construction had built condominiums for the Williamsburg Condominium Association, which later filed a construction defect lawsuit against Titan and other defendants. Titan settled with the developer, Kennydale, assigning its rights against Mid-Continent to Kennydale. Mid-Continent filed suit, claiming that “it had no obligation to indemnify or defend Titan, Kennydale, or various other defendants.” The district court found in favor of Mid-Continent, granting a summary judgment, concluding that Titan’s insurance covered “occurrences,” and none had taken place.



On appeal, the court found that the negligent construction of the condominiums constituted an “occurrence” The case was remanded and the district court this time found in favor of Titan, “concluding that Mid-Continent failed to raise a triable issue as to the applicability of the remaining policy exclusions.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed that decision and Titan’s summary judgment stands.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

May 31, 2021 — Copernicus T. Gaza, Robert S. Nobel, Craig Rokuson, Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
The New York State Assembly is considering A07285, which creates a private right of action for bad faith “if the insurer unreasonably refuses to pay or unreasonably delays payment without substantial justification.” The bill was first introduced in 2013 but was reintroduced on May 3, 2021 and has received some recent attention. According to the bill, an insurer acts unreasonably when it (among other things):

1. Fails to provide the claimant with accurate information regarding policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue; or
2. Fails to effectuate in good faith a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim or portion of a claim and where the insurer failed to reasonably accord at least equal or more favorable consideration to its insured's interests as it did to its own interests, and thereby exposed the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits or caused other damage to a claimant; or
3. Fails to provide a timely written denial of a claimant's claim, or portion thereof, with a full and complete explanation of such denial, including references to specific policy provisions wherever possible; or
4. Fails to act in good faith by compelling such claimant to initiate a lawsuit to recover under the policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in such suit; or
5. Fails to timely provide, on request of the policy holder or the policy holder's representative, all reports or other documentation arising from the investigation of a claim; or
6. Refuses to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation prior to such refusal.

Reprinted courtesy of Copernicus T. Gaza, Traub Lieberman, Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman, Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman Mr. Gaza may be contacted at cgaza@tlsslaw.com Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement

November 18, 2024 — Mark Chediak - Bloomberg
Hawaiian Electric Industries formalized a $2 billion agreement to settle damage claims from a wildfire that razed the historic town of Lahaina and killed more than 100 people. The utility-owner had reached a tentative agreement in August in which it, along with other defendants including the state of Hawaii, Maui County and landowners, would pay $4 billion to resolve hundreds of lawsuits stemming from last year’s wildfire, according to a filing Tuesday. The settlements don’t resolve claims with insurers that are part of separate lawsuits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg

---

Over a Hundred Thousand Superstorm Sandy Cases Re-Opened

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced yesterday that they will be reopening 144,000 flood insurance claims, reported the New Jersey Law Journal. The announcement comes weeks after reports that “some insurance companies denied thousands of claims after fraudulently altering engineering reports, as well as complaints that insurance companies systematically underpay on claims because they fear a backlash from FEMA.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The New York Times reports that a company paid to inspect concrete at major public works projects in New York has been charged with falsifying results. They had been hired by the city three years ago after their predecessor was found to have falsified results.



According to the Times, investigators found nothing legitimate in nearly three thousand reports. The owner and five employees of American Standard Testing and Consulting Laboratories have been indicted on twenty-nine counts, including charges under New York’s racketeering law. Prison terms could be up to twenty-five years.



Prior to the city’s contract with American Standard, the city employed a firm called Testwell. Testwell was found in 2008 to have falsified its test results.

Read the full story…

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

---

Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company

December 16, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Kanovsky v. At Your Door Self Storage (No. B297338; filed 11/25/19), a California appeals court held that a waiver of liability and agreement to self-insure in a storage container contract barred coverage for water damage to goods stored in the container. In Kanovsky, plaintiffs contracted for portable storage containers when moving. They loaded their washing machine into one of the containers without checking whether it was fully drained. They locked the containers and reopened them four years later to discover water damage to the contents. They sued the storage company, alleging causes of action for breach of contract; tortious breach of covenant; negligence; and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750. The storage company’s insurer intervened and moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The appeals court affirmed. The storage company’s contract contained a release of liability stating that personal property was stored “at the customer’s sole risk” and the owners “shall not be liable for any damage or loss,” including water damage. Further, the contract stated that the containers were not waterproof, and again that the storage company was not liable for water damage. The contract attached an addendum further stating that the owner was “a landlord renting space, is not a warehouseman, and does not take custody of my property.” The addendum went on with an acknowledgement that the owner: “2. Is not responsible for loss or damage to my property; 3. Does not provide insurance on my property for me; and 4. Requires that I provide my own insurance coverage or be ‘Self-Insured’ (personally assume risk of loss or damage).” 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

---