Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

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

Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A West Virginia couple has sued the manufacturer of their home for construction defects and damage. Darrell and Teri Pearson claim that the home they purchased from Giles Industries was defective. They further claim that Kitchen’s Construction failed to set the home up properly and that the firm did not repair damaged sections of home. The suit also names the firm that sold the home and others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

40 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Ed Doernberger

November 23, 2016 — Tracy Alan Saxe - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Forty years ago, on the Big Island of Hawaii, Edwin L. Doernberger was sworn in as an attorney. Fifteen years ago, Ed rejoined two former partners to help build an exciting new boutique insurance policyholder practice. Today, Saxe Doernberger & Vita is pleased to celebrate the 40th anniversary of its most distinguished partner. “Ed’s energy and enthusiasm are undiminished,” said co-founder and Managing Partner, Tracy Alan Saxe. “He’s still one of the firm’s most active litigators.” Ed has extensive appellate experience, having argued before the Connecticut and Hawaii Supreme and Appellate Courts, New York Appellate Courts, and the Second and Ninth Circuits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracy Alan Saxe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Saxe may be contacted at tas@sdvlaw.com

Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.

Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.

In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.

In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”

Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.

In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.

Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.

The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”

Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

September 16, 2019 — Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
While we avoid using this blog as a platform for self-promotion, long-time readers will know we make an exception to recognize the Super Lawyers of the firm, each of whom is humbled to receive this peer-rated award. Super Lawyers recognizes attorneys who have distinguished themselves in their legal practice as recognized by their peers. Attorneys are selected through a patented selection process combining peer nominations and independent research. Results are based on legal excellence, industry involvement, and civic leadership. Only five percent of lawyers in Washington State are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers, and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers Rising Stars. John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, was again recognized as one of the Top 10 Lawyers out of all Washington lawyers. Founding partner Paul R. Cressman Jr. was again recognized as one of the 100-Best Lawyers considering Lawyers State of Washington wide. In addition, four other firm members are also recognized as Super Lawyers: Founding Partner Scott R. Sleight, Brett M. Hill, Bruce A. Cohen, and Lawrence S. Glosser. Partners Ryan W. Sternoff and Lindsay (Taft) Watkins, and associates Ceslie A. Blass and Scott D. MacDonald are all recognized as Super Lawyer Rising Stars, which recognizes attorneys either 40 years old or younger, or in practice 10 years or less. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

September 07, 2017 — Jesse Witt - The Witt Law Firm
Colorado’s new construction defect law officially takes effect this month. Although HB 17-1279 was passed in May, the statutory text provides that it only applies “with respect to events and circumstances occurring on or after September 1, 2017.” With that date now upon us, practitioners should be mindful of the law’s new requirements. The law applies to any lawsuit wherein a homeowner association files a construction defect action on behalf of two or more of its members. “Construction defect action” is defined broadly to include any claims against construction professionals relating to deficiencies in design or construction of real property. Before an association may commence such an action, its board must follow several steps. First, the board must deliver notice of the potential construction defect action to all homeowners and the affected construction professionals at their last known addresses. This requirement does not apply to construction professionals identified after the notice has been mailed, or to construction professionals joined in a previously-approved lawsuit. The notice must include a description of the alleged construction defects with reasonable specificity, the relief sought, a good-faith estimate of the benefits and risks involved, and a list of mandatory disclosures concerning assessments, attorney fees, and the marketability of units affected by construction defects. The notice must also call a meeting of all homeowners. The notice should be sent to the construction professionals at least five days before the homeowners. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Brazil’s Former President Turns Himself In to Police

July 22, 2019 — Mario Sergio Lima - Bloomberg
Brazil’s former President Michel Temer handed himself in to police following a court ruling that’s unlikely to cause upheaval in domestic politics. Temer turned himself in on Thursday afternoon, after federal court judges ordered his detention on charges of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering and conspiracy. The former head of state was initially arrested on March 21 but released four days later. Temer’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The 78-year old’s party, the MDB, issued a note condemning the “unreasonable” decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mario Sergio Lima, Bloomberg

Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty

June 26, 2023 — Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Summary of the new law as it pertains to builders of new homes: The existing 10-year statute of repose for builders of new homes (the ultimate cut-off date for filing suit) has been shortened to 6 years if the builder provides a 1-2-6 written warranty (1-year workmanship and materials; 2-year plumbing, electrical and HVAC; 6-year structural). Extended time to bring suit if written claim presented during the period of repose: If a written claim for damages, contribution, or indemnity is presented to the builder during the applicable limitations period and the 6-year statute of repose applies, the time to sue is extended one year from the date the claim is presented. In practical effect, this means that if a written claim is presented and the statute of repose expires before suit is filed, suit may still be filed provided it is within one year of the date the written claim was made. When the new law goes into effect: The new law is effective as of June 9, 2023 and applies to suits commenced on or after that date. However, if the contract under which the claim is brought was entered into before June 9, 2023, the former 10-year version of the statute of repose applies. In other words, the statute applies to contracts entered into on or after June 9, 2023, if the contract has at least a 1-2-6 warranty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Altsuler may be contacted at kaltsuler@pecklaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES