Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

February 15, 2018 — Matthew Peng – Construction Law Blog
If you are reading this blog, my guess is that you know what excavation is and why it is important to the construction process. However, what you may not know is the complicated California law that governs this process. The statute for an excavation contractor to be familiar with is California Government Code section 4216, et seq. However, like most things worth pursuing, that is easier said than done. Section 4216 contains several layers of prerequisites and requirements. This article will explore the notice requirement. Section 4216.1 requires “every operator of a subsurface installation” to share costs of a regional notification center. This is necessary because Section 4216.2(b) requires “an excavator planning to conduct an excavation shall notify the appropriate regional notification center of the excavator’s intent to excavate” before beginning that excavation. The statute lists two regional notification centers: the Underground Service Alert—Northern California and the Under Ground Service Alert—Southern California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Peng, Gordon & Rees
Mr. Peng may be contacted at mpeng@grsm.com

House Bill Clarifies Start Point for Florida’s Statute of Repose

September 14, 2017 — Lian Skaf - White and Williams LLP
The Florida legislature recently enacted a law clarifying when the ten-year statute of repose begins to run for cases involving “improvements to real property,” as that phrase is used in Florida Statute Section 95.11. House Bill 377 was signed into law on June 14, 2017 and took effect in all cases accruing on or after July 1, 2017. This amendment is significant to subrogation professionals evaluating when cases involving contractors and design professionals are time barred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

November 21, 2017 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
Originally published by CDJ on January 13, 2017 The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal court in Colorado recently applied the business risk exclusion to a construction defect case. Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law discuss this in Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly. The court found that the business risk exclusion barred coverage for an underlying construction defect. In the construction defect case, the Creek Side at Parker homeowners association sued the developer and builder. One such alleged defect was that “the plumbing contractor’s faulty installation of sewer and water lines damaged the lines themselves, caused surrounding asphalt and concrete to crack and deteriorate, and resulted in water intrusion.” The court concluded that this damage to non-defective work was an occurrence, but the exclusion in the contract covered only property damage that occurred “while the work is ongoing.” The court concluded that the business risk exclusion barred coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When Your “Private” Project Suddenly Turns into a “Public” Project. Hint: It Doesn’t Necessary Turn on Public Financing or Construction

September 28, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In 1931, during the Great Depression, the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act to help workers on federal construction projects. The Davis-Bacon Act, also known as the federal prevailing wage law, sets minimum wages that must be paid to workers on federal construction projects based on local “prevailing” wages. The law was designed to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local construction projects. California’s current prevailing wage law requires that contractors on state and local public works projects pay their employees the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located, as well as to hire apprentices enrolled in state-approved apprentice programs and to make monetary contributions for apprenticeship training. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

September 12, 2022 — Robert A. James, Ashleigh Myers, Shellka Arora-Cox & Amanda G. Halter - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
As the world pursues ambitious net-zero carbon emission goals, demand is soaring for the critical materials required for the technologies leading the energy transition. Lithium may be the most well-known of these inputs due to its usage in batteries for vehicles and consumer electronics, but roughly 50 other minerals are central to energy transition technologies. During the coming years, producers, manufacturers and end-users will be increasingly exposed to the roles played by “rare earth” elements (roughly, atomic numbers 57 to 71), platinum group metals, and other materials. The reasons for this heightened interest are simple—even if the underlying environmental, political and technological forces at play are complex:

Lower-carbon technologies use different materials than carbon-intensive technologies. The mineral requirements of power and mobility systems driven by renewable, nuclear, hydrogen and fusion energy are profoundly different from those forming the backbone of fossil fuel systems. Minerals such as lithium, nickel, copper, cobalt, and rare earth elements are vital for electric vehicles (EVs), batteries, fuel cells, electricity grids, wind turbines, smart devices, and many other essential and proliferating civilian and military technologies. For example, an offshore wind plant needs 13 times more mineral resources than a gas power plant of a similar size.

Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury, Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury, Shellka Arora-Cox, Pillsbury and Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Arora-Cox may be contacted at shellka.aroracox@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

March 16, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has issued their 2017 Infrastructure Report Card, which assigns a letter grade to the nation’s infrastructure. Our country’s grade in 2017? A disappointing D+. Although, if you’re a glass half full kind of person (bless your soul) at least our grade didn’t fall since the last report card was issued in 2013, when our grade was a D+ as well. In short, we suck. Although, apparently, we don’t suck evenly across the board. ASCE has divided its cumulative GPA into grades for specific courses, if you will. Our transit systems received a grade of D-; our airports, dams, drinking water and waste water plants, inland waterways, levees and roads received a grade of D; our power plants, hazardous waste plants, public parks and schools received a grade of D+; our bridges, ports and solid waste plants a grade of C+, and our rail systems received a grade of B. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

For Whom Additional Insured Coverage Applies in New York

November 11, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
Simply including a requirement in a contract to add certain parties as additional insureds under a commercial general liability insurance (CGL) policy may not be enough to ensure such coverage is provided in New York. In New York City Hous. Auth. v. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co., 226 A.D.3d 804 (2024), the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division – Second Department ruled that the language in an insurance endorsement required privity of contract with the insured party subcontractor to obtain additional insured status and denied coverage to others despite a provision in a subcontract requiring such additional insured coverage. In this case, an owner entered into a contract with a general contractor for construction services. The general contractor entered into a subcontract with a subcontractor. The subcontractor agreed to procure and maintain a CGL policy naming the owner, the general contractor, and another related party as additional insureds thereunder. An employee of the subcontractor was injured on the project and sued the three additional insureds and several other parties. Subcontractor’s insurance company refused to defend and indemnify any party other than the general contractor. All the parties sued by the subcontractor’s employee brought an action against the subcontractor’s insurance company, seeking coverage for defense and indemnification as additional insureds under the subcontractor’s CGL policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES