FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

May 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A differing site condition claim will almost universally result in both a cost and time impact. There will be additional, unanticipated costs incurred. And there will likely be a delay requiring additional time to perform. A Type I differing site condition claim is when the contractor encounters conditions at the site different than those indicated in the contract documents. That seems easy enough to prove, right. Nope. And, I mean nope! If you don’t believe me, consider the recent decision in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 885 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2018). 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

---

Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

March 14, 2018 — Shannon M. Warren – The Subrogation Strategist
On January 23, 2018, the Northern District of Indiana issued a decision that clarifies what constitutes spoliation of evidence under Indiana law. In Arcelormittal Ind. Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10141 (N.D. Ind.), the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the plaintiff intentionally spoliated critical evidence. The defendant sought dismissal of the action, asserting that the plaintiff intentionally discarded and lost important physical evidence within hours of a fire that occurred while the defendant’s employees were performing work at its facility. The decision underscores the importance of taking immediate action to properly identify and secure potentially material evidence in order to satisfy ones duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and avoid any spoliation defenses and associated sanctions. In Arcelormittal, the court initially considered whether to apply state or federal law when analyzing a litigant’s duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and determine if that party committed spoliation. Since the case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court held that Indiana state law governed the spoliation analysis. As noted by the court, under Indiana state law, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, altercation, or concealment of evidence” is considered to be spoliation. Thus, under Indiana law, a party who knew or should have known that litigation was imminent “may not lose, destroy or suppress material facts or evidence.” The plaintiff argued that Indiana law requires a showing of improper purpose or bad faith to establish that a litigant spoliated evidence. The Arcelormittal court rejected the plaintiff’s argument. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has ruled on January 9, 2012 in Hensel Phelps Construction Company v. Urata & Sons Cement, upholding the judgment of the lower court.



Hensel Phelps was the general contractor for a high-rise in Sacramento. They were sued by the owners of the building after problems were discovered in the concrete slabs of the building’s parking garage. Instead of welded steel wire mesh, the slabs had been constructed with fiber mesh. Hensel Phelps filed a cross-complaint against Urata Cement, the subcontractor that had performed the cement work. Urata refused to defend Hensel Phelps. The owners’ case was subsequently dismissed due to the statute of limitations.



Although the original case was over, Hensel Phelps continued in their claims against Urata. “Urata argued that a handwritten interlineation required Hensel Phelps to prove Urata was at fault for the injury alleged in the building owners’ complaint before Urata was obliged to defend Hensel Phelps in that action.”



The lower court concluded that Urata would have been obligated to defend Hensel Phelps if the owners’ lawsuit had alleged that the damage was due to the subcontractor’s work or if evidence at trial established this. The lower court found neither of these true. Instead, the use of the fiber mesh was a design issue and “that decision was outside the scope of the subcontractor’s work.”



During the trial, Hensel Phelps conceded that Urata was not at fault. The appeals court could find no reading of the contract that would cause Urata to be obligated to defend Hensel Phelps, calling Hensel Phelps’s reading of the contact as “grammatically infeasible.”



Judges Nicholson, Raye, and Butz upheld the decision of the lower court and awarded costs on appeal to Urata.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees

February 05, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Looking outside as of late it seems like the glorious, sun-drenched days of Summer are just a nostalgic memory of days long gone. So, to bring back some of those warm-weather memories, I have a swimming pool case for you. Although, like most of the things we write about here on the California Construction Law Blog it’s not all fun-in-the-sun. The Lee Case In Lee v. Cardiff, 94 Cal.App.5th 398 (2023), Homeowner Dianne Lee entered into a construction contact with contractor David Brian Cardiff doing business as Advantage Pools Bay Area for a swimming pool and landscaping project totaling $231,500. It must have been quite a pool. As these things sometimes go, a dispute arose and Cardiff left the job before its was finished. Lee later sued alleging breach of contract, negligent construction and violation of the Contractor State License Law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

January 08, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We lawyers do a fair amount of reading. Documents. Court decisions. Passive aggressive correspondence from opposing counsel. As well as statutes, regulations and administrative guidance. And you might be surprised how often words can be ascribed very different meanings depending on who is reading it. Such, I suppose, is the nature of language. When it comes to public agency interpretations of its own regulations, however, you would be well to heed that authors are often the best interpreters of their own works, or at least that’s how the courts tend to view it, as in the next case L & S Framing Inc. v. California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, Case No. C096386 (July 24, 2023). The L & S Framing Case Martin Mariano, an employee of L & S Framing, Inc., suffered a brain injury when he fell from the “second floor” while working on a single family house. What, exactly, this “second floor” was, was a point of a contention in the legal case that followed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Class Action Status, Reducing Homes from 1000 to 71

July 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that the “Nevada Supreme Court has rejected a request for class action status for claims of damaged stucco from faulty construction by Del Webb Communities involving nearly 1,000 Sun City Summerlin residents,” however, “the court upheld the award of damages to 71 homeowners following a jury trial in Clark County District Court in 2008.” The case began in 2003, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal referred to it as “one of the largest construction-defect cases in Nevada history.” But District Judge Allan Earl denied class action lawsuit in 2006. “Attorneys were seeking $70 million for the homeowners.” In 2008, another court “determined that only 71 homeowners merited compensation totaling $4 million for the stucco issues.” According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “[h]omeowners alleged that Del Webb failed to install metal screeds that would protect homes from water damage, and as a result, the homes suffered from cracked stucco, mold and weakened walls.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pandemic Magnifies Financial Risk in Construction: What Executives Can Do to Speed up Customer Payments

August 23, 2021 — Lori J. Drake - Construction Executive
Construction businesses are waiting longer for payment in 2021, according to the newly released 2021 Construction Cash Flow and Payment Report conducted by Levelset. According to respondents, only 10% of construction businesses get paid in full, which is a 75% drop from 2020, and only 9% get paid on time, which is a drop of 60% over last year. The report, based on a survey of 764 construction professionals, illustrates that financial risk in the industry flowed down the payment chain. General contractors were four times more likely to get paid in 30 days, and 50% more likely to get paid in full. However, 20% of subcontractors, suppliers and other second-tier companies were kept waiting more than 60 days to collect payment. Reprinted courtesy of Lori J. Drake, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance

December 27, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
It is a good idea to know what your insurance covers and does not cover. This way, if your course of business has you performing a certain (risky) operation, you know whether that operation is covered or excluded under your policy. If you are not sure, discuss with your insurance broker — this is important. There is little value performing an operation that is NOT covered by your insurance policy, as you are now performing a risk that is not covered by insurance. If you know it is not covered by insurance you may elect to change your operations or see if there is insurance to cover the risk. Below is a case study of this occurrence dealing with a commercial automobile liability policy where an insured’s operations using a crane mounted to a super duty truck was not covered under their automobile liability policy. In People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D262a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), homeowners hired a company to install a shed. The company hired another company to deliver and install the shed using a crane; the company used a crane mounted to a Ford F-750 super duty truck. This company improperly operated the crane resulting in the shed falling and damaging the homeowner’s roof. The homeowners submitted a claim to their property insurer and their property insurer subrogated to their rights and sued. The company operating the crane’s commercial automobile liability insurer denied coverage, and thus, denied the duty to defend. As a result, a Coblentz-type agreement was entered into where the company operating the crane consented to a judgment in favor of the property insurer (subrogee) and assigned its rights under its commercial automobile liability policy to the property insurer. The property insurer then sued the automobile liability carrier for coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the automobile liability insurer finding there was no coverage and this was affirmed on appeal. Why? 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

---