Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

September 05, 2022 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
[1]Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture of Dragados USA and Tutor Perini, entered into a $1.4 billion contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to replace the Highway 99 viaduct. In December 2013, a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”) bearing the moniker “Bertha,” then the largest TBM ever built, measuring 425 feet long and 57 feet in diameter, struck an underground pipe. Shortly after the impact, Bertha overheated and eventually could no longer make forward progress. A massive repair effort ensued causing a 2.5-year delay in reaching substantial completion. WSDOT sued STP for the delay, seeking liquidated damages of $57 million. In response, STP argued its delay was excusable because it was caused by Bertha’s impact with the pipe, and the steel well casing was a Differing Site Condition (DSC) undisclosed in the contract documents. STP asserted counterclaims against WSDOT, alleging breach of contract and seeking $300 million in damages. Ultimately, a jury found that the steel well casing on the pipe was not a DSC, foreclosing STP’s excusable delay defense and counterclaims, and resulting in a $57 million verdict, plus interest, in favor of WSDOT. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that “non-contracting parties may bring negligence claims for construction defects because such claims are not barred by the economic loss doctrine,” as Richard Erikson writes in a Snell & Wilmer Legal Alert. In the case of Sullivan v. Pulte Home, Pulte had built the home in 2000. The original buyer sold it to the Sullivans in 2003. The Sullivans discovered construction defects in a retaining wall in 2009. The lost their original lawsuit, but the appeals court found that if the Sullivans filed within two years of finding the damage, they could sue. The case then progressed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Erikson points out that in an amicus brief, a number of parties in the Arizona homebuilding industry argued that “the appellate court’s ruling was commercially irreconcilable with expectations of builders, homeowners, homebuyers, engineers and architects in the construction industry.” Nevertheless, the Sullivans prevailed at court. Erikson asks what the actual limit on construction defects must be, given that the court found for plaintiffs who discovered construction defects nine years after the home was built. “How many years after the builder finishes a home does it have to plan on defending defect claims—10, 20, 30 years?” He proposes that the Arizona legislature needs to clarify the specific limits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Another Setback for the New Staten Island Courthouse

January 13, 2014 — Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFF
The new Staten Island Courthouse received another setback when James McDonough filed suit stating unsafe work conditions, according to Frank Donnelly writing for Silive. The completion date for the new multistory, $230 million complex has been rescheduled four times so far. Fifty-eight year old James McDonough, resident of Ridgewood Queens, became injured after a fall down a shaft, and he subsequently “sued the city, state Dormitory Authority, the state Office of Court Administration and various contractors,” Donnelly reported. A total of ten defendants have been named in the suit. According to Silive, the Office of Court Administration, Dormitory Authority and the Law Department would not comment on the pending litigation further except to say that papers have been filed and the case is under review. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

May 16, 2022 — Michael S. Levine, Kevin V. Small & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
NL Industries recently prevailed against its commercial general liability insurers in the New York Appellate Division in a noteworthy case regarding the meaning of “expected or intended” injury and the meaning of “damages” in a liability insurance policy. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries, Inc., No. 2021-00241, 2022 WL 867910 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 24, 2022) (“NL Indus. II”), the Appellate Division held that exclusions for expected or intended injury required a finding that NL actually expected or intended the resulting harm; not merely have knowledge of an increased risk of harm. In addition, the court held that the funding of an abatement fund designed to prevent future harm amounted to “damages” in the context of a liability policy because the fund has a compensatory effect. NL Industries II is a reminder to insurers and policyholders alike that coverage is construed liberally and exclusions are construed narrowly towards maximizing coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.S. Army Corps Announces Regulatory Program “Modernization” Plan

August 03, 2022 — Karen Bennett - Lewis Brisbois
Washington D.C. (June 17, 2022) - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Army recently announced plans to amend the Corps Civil Works program to better serve Indian nations and other disadvantaged and underserved communities. 87 Fed. Reg. 33758 (June 3, 2022). Comments are due by August 2, 2022. Several items warrant attention. The first are changes to Corps regulations on implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, or the Act) (33 CFR 325, Appendix C). Proposed options include suspension of the Corps’ Appendix C regulations and adoption of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) regulations. Congress established the ACHP, an independent agency whose mission is to provide the President and Congress with advice as to policies and programs on historical preservation. The NHPA authorized the Council to promulgate regulations establishing procedures for evaluating the effect of a federal action on historic property. The Act also provides that a federal agency may promulgate its own regulations, consistent with the Council’s regulations. Where an agency has its own regulations, courts have consistently held that the agency’s regulations govern decision-making, provided they are not inconsistent with the Part 800 regulations. Most courts have generally regarded an agency’s regulations as inconsistent when they are less restrictive procedurally than the Council’s. Until today, the Corps has defended Appendix C and interim guidance (issued in 2005 and 2007) as consistent with the NHPA and specifically tailored for use in the Corps regulatory program. The announcement marks a significant directional change and gives the ACHP a larger role in Corps regulatory decisions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com

New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

April 25, 2023 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
On April 7, 2023, New Mexico’s governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, signed into law New Mexico’s Right to Repair Act (Act), 2023 N.M. SB 50. The Act’s effective date is July 1, 2023. The Act applies to construction defects in dwellings, i.e., newly constructed single family housing units designed for residential use. The Act applies to not only newly constructed housing units but also to systems and other components and improvements that are part of the housing unit at the time of construction. Pursuant to the Act, except for construction defect claims that involve an immediate threat to the life or safety of persons occupying the dwelling, that render the dwelling uninhabitable or in which the seller, after notice, refused to make a repair pursuant to any applicable express warranty, a purchaser must comply with the provisions of the Act before filing a complaint or pursing an alternative dispute mechanism related to a construction defect in the dwelling. A seller who receives a notice complying with the provisions of the Act must give notice to all construction professionals who may be responsible for the defect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Insured's Remand of Bad Faith Action Granted

December 30, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court agreed remand of the insured's bad faith action to state court was appropriate. Kavanaugh v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138465 (C.D. Calif. Aug. 15, 2019). The insured sued National Union and Great American Insurance Company in state court for failing to defend him in three civil actions. In the alternative, claims were brought against Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc. and Chelsea Laing for professional negligence in failing to broker and procure adequate insurance for him. Laing acted as an "agent and/or broker and procured at least one of the policies at issue." Gallagher removed the action based on federal diversity jurisdiction. Although Laing was a citizen of California, Gallagher argued she was fraudulently joined and was a sham defendant, so her citizenship should be disregarded for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The insured moved to remand because Laing was a proper defendant. 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

Mechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix Well

May 03, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As those who read my “musings” here at this construction law blog are well aware, the topic of Virginia mechanic’s liens is one that is much discussed. From the basic statutory requirements to the more technical aspects of these tricky beasts. One aspect of mechanic’s liens that I have yet to discuss in detail it how these liens attach in the situation where the contractor does work for a lessee and not for the owner of the underlying fee interest in the property. A recent case out of the Western District of Virginia federal court, McCarthy Building Companies Inc. v. TPE Virginia Land Holdings LLC, discusses the interaction of Va. Code 43-20, work on a leasehold, and parties necessary to any litigation relating to a lien for the work on that leasehold. The basic facts, outlined more thoroughly in the linked opinion, are these. MBC provided certain work to TPE Kentuck Solar, LLC on property leased from TPE Virginia Land Holdings, LLC. The lease was for a fixed term and for a fixed amount regardless of the work performed at the property. MBC was unpaid by the Kentuck entity and then recorded a lien on the property and then sued to enforce that lien and for unjust enrichment against TPE Land Holdings. TPE Land Holding filed a motion to dismiss the mechanic’s lien and unjust enrichment counts. 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