Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

June 21, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court. The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well. Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote: “The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

The Importance of Retrofitting Existing Construction to Meet Sustainability Standards

December 18, 2022 — Chris Gray - Construction Executive
Just about every industry is looking for ways in which they can go “green,” with varying degrees of success. Historically, the real estate industry has underinvested in the infrastructure, even with government incentives and initiatives, buildings and construction continue to pollute our atmosphere and release excess amounts of carbon into the air. As it stands, existing buildings are, and will continue to be, a main problem. Right now, the real estate sector is responsible for a whopping 40% of global carbon emissions, along with 70% of the world’s electricity, and while we must continue to prioritize new, sustainable buildings, that does not address the countless buildings that are already standing and producing mass amounts of carbon emissions detrimental to our earth’s environment. It is predicted that 70% of the existing buildings across the world will still be standing by the year 2050, meaning these outdated, inefficient warehouses and office parks aren’t going anywhere. To address the real estate carbon footprint, the industry needs to use modern technological solutions to combat this massive issue and implement new technology that transforms dated buildings into high-value decarbonized assets. Reprinted courtesy of Chris Gray, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Tips for Contractors

December 08, 2016 — Patrick McNamara - Porter Law Group
Many contractors contentedly accept the insurance policies presented to them by their insurance carriers. However, it is a much better practice to be an active participant in choosing the most appropriate coverage for your business and the specific jobs that you are performing. Use the following tips to be sure your company has the best and most comprehensive coverage.

Never purchase a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy with a “sunset” provision limiting coverage under Products & Completed Operations liability (P&CO) to a 2, 3 or 4-year term. Why? Because the California statute of limitations for construction defect claims is generally 10 years.
Never consider a “Claims-made” or “Modified Occurrence” coverage form which also have a built-in limitation as to the length or term of P&CO coverage. Example: If you purchase a claims-made policy and decide to “switch” your insurance to the preferred “occurrence” coverage form, unless a special provision is made prior to the new purchase, the claims-made coverage would become worthless after the sixty (60) day claims-reporting period.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com

Lawmakers Strike Deal on New $38B WRDA

January 09, 2023 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
Key Senate and House leaders have reached a bipartisan agreement on a new Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) that would authorize more than $37 billion in federal funds for 25 new and five modified Army Corps of Engineers flood and hurricane protection, harbor dredging and other civil works projects across the U.S. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.

The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.

The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.

In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.

The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.

A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”

Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.

Read the court’s decision…

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

September 20, 2021 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Three Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2022.

Bruce Cleeland – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Peter Dubrawski – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Denis Moriarty – Insurance law

Seven Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2022.

Courtney Arbucci – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Frances Brower – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Kyle DiNicola – Transportation Law
Arezoo Jamshidi – Appellate Practice
Jonna Lothyan – Appellate Practice
Kristian Moriarty – Transportation Law
Bethsaida Obra-White – Construction Law; Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

January 17, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Pentagon is an important source of construction contracts, and one place where they’re acutely aware of this in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Luckily for the town’s economy, the military awarded $400 million in construction contracts to Colorado, many of them in the town of Colorado Springs. Projects in Colorado Springs include facilities for a helicopter unit at Fort Carson and renovations at the Air Force Academy. The new operation center for defense intelligence at Buckley Air Force Base will be built in nearby Aurora. The price tag on the operations center is $117 million. Meanwhile, the military has thousands of both civilian and military employees who will be using these facilities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Richard H. Glucksman, Jon Turigliatto, and Kacey R. Riccomini of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger analyzed Transport and wrote, “The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES