Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The stucco subcontractor for a condominium complex did not join in with the other defendants in a settlement of more than $15 million, preferring to take the case to a jury trial. That jury has found the stucco installer liable for $7.7 million to make repairs. Mark Wiechnik of Herrick Feinstein LLP wrote about the case on the Lexology web site. Mr. Wiechnik notes that the jury was shown “samples of rotted wood taken from the property as well as numerous pictures of damage resulting from the various defects.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

June 22, 2016 — Clay Whittaker – Florida Construction Law Update
In Brock v. Garner Window & Door Sales, Inc.,[1] Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected a novel attempt to circumvent Florida’s well-established four-year statute of limitations for all actions founded on the construction of an improvement to real property. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract as a result of water intrusion damage following the installation of windows.[2] It was undisputed that Plaintiff commenced the litigation more than four years following the discovery of the allegedly latent defect in the window installation.[3] Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the window contractor could not rely on the four-year statute of limitations because the window subcontractor was not a licensed contractor and, therefore, the five-year statute of limitations for actions founded on written contracts should apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Clay Whittaker, Cole, Scott, & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Whittaker may be contacted at clay.whittaker@csklegal.com

Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

September 15, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As longtime (or new readers for that matter) know, mechanic’s liens are near and dear to my heart here at Construction Law Musings. These powerful tools to collect for your hard work on a construction project are great when prepared and recorded in the very specific fashion required by the Virginia legislature and courts. In most situations, if done properly, a mechanic’s lien gives you some security and priority for your construction claim that you would not have with a simple judgment lien. Despite the power of a properly perfected and enforced mechanic’s lien (and the fact that the end result of a full mechanic’s lien suit that remains unsettled is in fact a foreclosure), a recent case in the Eastern District of Virginia, Weinberg v. J.P. Morgan Chase, et. al., (thanks for the head’s up on this case to the folks at the Construction Payment Blog) held that under Virginia statute mechanic’s lien holders are not entitled to notice of foreclosure. In the Weinberg case, the plaintiff, a pro se lien claimant that recorded two different liens, one pre-foreclosure and one post-foreclosure, and who had not received notice of the intervening foreclosure, argued, among other things, that he should have been given notice of the foreclosure on the deed of trust on the property by J. P. Morgan Chase. 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

More Details Emerge in Fatal Charlotte, NC, Scaffold Collapse

January 17, 2023 — Derek Lacey & Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Details have emerged in the Jan. 2 scaffold collapse at an under-construction apartment high-rise in Charlotte, N.C. that killed three workers and injured two. A work suspension continues during an investigation led by the North Carolina Dept. of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Division. Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record and Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

June 11, 2014 — Amy Thomson – Bloomberg
Come home to a hot iron and smoldering clothes this afternoon? Soon, it may not be a sign of forgetfulness, but rather evidence that you’ve been hacked. In coming years, your smartphone will be able to lock your house, turn on the air conditioning, check whether the milk is out of date, or even heat up your iron. Great news, except that all that convenience could also let criminals open your doors, spy on your family or drive your connected car to their lair. “As these technologies become more sophisticated, it opens up a broader spectrum of threats,” said Gunter Ollmann, chief technology officer of IOActive, a tech security firm in Seattle. A world of connected devices makes it possible “for the bad guys to have permanent entry into your household.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amy Thomson, Bloomberg
Ms. Thomson may be contacted at athomson6@bloomberg.net

10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of

November 05, 2014 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Construction lawyers may not ponder the great questions in life. We leave that to the estate planning attorneys. But ponder we do. And the next case, as I’ll explain below, “kind of” answers 10 important mechanics lien questions we construction attorneys toss and turn over at night. Background In Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case Nos. G049907 and G049910 (October 14, 2014), developer Inland-LGC Beaumont, LLC (“Inland”) hired general contractor 361 Group Construction Services, Inc. (“361″) to construct a Kohl’s department store in Beaumont, California. The Kohl’s department store was to be constructed on one parcel of a three-parcel tract. Inland later sold the parcel on which the Kohl’s department store was to be located to Kohl’s and the two other parcels were later acquired by Wells Fargo who foreclosed on the construction loan for the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

November 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. 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

Insurer Fails to Establish Prejudice Due to Late Notice

October 17, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Summary judgment awarded to the insurer was reversed because the insurer presented no evidence of prejudice caused by untimely notice. Perez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 5435 (Fla. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2022). The insureds' home suffered water damage due to Hurricane Irma around September 10, 2017. A claim was submitted to Citizens on November 27, 2018. Citizens had an independent adjuster inspect, but then denied the claim due to untimely notice. The insureds sued and Citizens moved for summary judgment. Citizens argued it was prejudiced because it could not confirm the cause of the loss or the property damage attributed to it. The court agreed that the insureds' notice was untimely. The insureds were notified by tenants renting the property that leaks appeared around the time of Hurriane Irma. The policy language, however, placed the burden to rebut the presumption of prejudice caused by late notice on Citizens. Whether the insurer was prejudiced was a question of fact. Citizens failed to demonstrate any prejudice due to the untimely notice. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES