Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Comparative Breach of Contract – The New Benefit of the Bargain in Construction?

October 26, 2020 — Steven Hoffman - Florida Construction Law News
Ask most Florida Construction Law practitioners, and you will likely hear that liability may not be apportioned in “pure” breach of contract cases via the Comparative Fault Act, section 768.81, Florida Statutes (the “Act”). If a material breach is a “substantial factor” in causing damages, the breaching party must answer for all damages that were reasonably contemplated by the parties when they formed the contract. Claimants argue that matters of contract should be governed strictly by the agreement, and risk can be controlled by negotiated terms, including waivers and limitations. Defendants complain that construction projects are collaborative, multi-party affairs, and strict application of contract principles leads to harsh results for relatively minor comparative fault for the same or overlapping damages. The notion of apportioning purely economic loss contract damages based on comparative fault is not new. Since April 2006, Florida has been a “pure” comparative fault jurisdiction with limited exceptions. Prior to the amendment, tort liability for non-economic damages was purely comparative, but liability for economic damages was typically a combination of joint and several liability with an additional exposure based on comparative fault. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steven Hoffman, Cole, Scott & Kissane
Mr. Hoffman may be contacted at Steven.Hoffman@csklegal.com

More on the VCPA and Construction

February 01, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have posted before regarding the intersection between the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and construction contracting in regard to residential construction projects. A case out of the Eastern District of Virginia District Court further discusses this intersection as it relates to design contracts that also include the procurement and installation of certain design elements post-design. The basic facts of Marcus v Dennis are as follows: In October of 2018, Defendant Marlene Dennis, the owner of Marlene Dennis Design, LLC (“MDD”), operating out of Virginia, entered into a contract to provide design services and the procurement and installation of certain design elements for the Plaintiffs, Gregory and Jamie Marcus, at their Maryland home. The Marcuses agreed to $175 per hour to Dennis with a cap of a total of $100,000.00 for design consultation and furniture selection and procurement. The Marcuses also agreed that they would pay no more than $250,000.00 for furnishings, rugs, artwork, decorative lighting, and accessories. In November 2020, Dennis sent an invoice for $68,000.00 and informed the Plaintiffs that the total contract fees would be more than the $100,000.00 cap. After paying $124,722.41 in design fees, the Plaintiffs received an invoice for $255,5560.72 in January of 2021. Despite the cap of $250,000.00, the Plaintiffs wired $255,000.00 to Dennis while requesting the backup invoices for the material charges. After much effort and a threat of litigation, the Plaintiffs received documents from Dennis showing that Dennis inflated the costs of the materials prior to passing the costs along to the Marcuses. The Plaintiffs’ home was unfurnished and empty as of April 10, 2021, and the Marcuses had to hire and pay another design team over $85,000.00 to finish Dennis’ work. Needless to say, the Marcuses sued both Dennis and her firm for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and for violation of the VCPA. Dennis moved to dismiss the Complaint. 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

Schools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms Continues

November 06, 2018 — Joanna Masterson - Construction Executive
A month after Hurricane Florence dumped more than 30 inches of rain on the Carolinas, Hurricane Michael delivered additional flash flooding, power outages and wind damage. While the construction-related impact of Hurricane Michael is still being assessed (stay tuned for more on that front in the coming weeks), Moody’s Analytics estimates total property damage from Florence at $17 billion to $22 billion, factoring in losses from homes, roads, crops, livestock, coal ash ponds and more. While it’s difficult to pinpoint which counties were hit the hardest, the majority of the damage was in the eastern coastal areas of North Carolina. According to Rob Beale, a vice president in W.M. Jordan’s Wilmington, North Carolina, office, Carteret and Onslow counties took the brunt of the storm, while Columbus and Brunswick counties experienced the biggest flooding impact. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

May 29, 2023 — Brett M. Hill & Ryanne S. Mathisen - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
This month, Governor Jay Inslee signed into law a new statute that caps retainage on private construction projects to five percent (5%), provides a mechanism for subcontractors to get paid their retainage prior to project completion, and allows for contractors and subcontractors to post a retainage bond and get paid their retainage early. For those interested in reading the full text of this new law, the statute can be found here. The new statute goes into effect on July 23, 2023. Under the statute, when a contractor or subcontractor considers their work under a contract subject to retainage complete, they may notify the party they contracted to perform the work for. Within 15 days of receiving the notice of completion of work, the party receiving the notice must respond with either (1) notice of acceptance of work or (2) notice of uncompleted items to the contractor or subcontractor. If the party receiving notice does not provide notice of uncompleted items within 15 days or fails to respond to the notice of completion entirely, the unpaid retainage will begin to accrue interest at a rate of one percent (1%) per month, 30 days after the initial 15-day period. However, this interest will not accrue against a contractor who has not been paid the retainage by an upper-tier contractor or owner until payment has been received, so long as that contractor has submitted its subcontractor’s notice of completion to the upper-tier contractor or owner within 30 days of receipt. Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryanne S. Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

October 21, 2019 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
My advice to home builders has long been to arbitrate construction defect claims instead of litigating them in front of juries. Based on my experience and watching others litigate claims, I have learned that home builders usually fare better in arbitration than in jury trials, both in terms of what they have to pay the homeowners or HOAs and also in what they recover from subcontractors and design professionals. Because of these dynamics, conventional wisdom has been that builders should arbitrate construction defect claims. For several reasons, I am now questioning whether the time is right to consider a third option. First, plaintiffs’ attorneys dislike arbitration and will continue their attempts to do away with arbitration for construction defect claims. In 2018, the Colorado Legislature considered HB 18-1261 and HB 18-1262. While both bills were ultimately killed, they showed the plaintiffs’ attorneys disdain for arbitration, and serve as a warning that attempts to prevent arbitration legislatively will continue. If the legislature does away with the ability to arbitrate construction defect claims, and that is the only means of dispute resolution contained in a builder’s contracts, that builder may find itself in front of a jury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

How Data Drives the Future of Design

April 11, 2022 — Marcin Kosicki - AEC Business
Data has become the currency of modern society. It is the most abundantly generated product of the 21st century. Every action in our lives, from asking for directions using Google Maps to liking a post on social media, produces data that is being mined in a variety of imaginative and profitable ways. If our daily actions generate an avalanche of information, how much data could the design, construction, and operation of a building produce? Sketches and drawings, simulations and building analyses, BIM models, construction logistics and procurement, post-occupancy data gathered by sensors, and 3D scans all produce an abundance of data. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the adoption of Big Data and Cloud Computing in the building industry is substantially less developed than in other fields. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marcin Kosicki, AEC Business

Risky Business: Contractual Versus Equitable Rights of Subrogation

December 16, 2023 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Strategist
In Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Infrastructure Eng’g. Inc., 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 383, the insurer, Zurich American Insurance Company (Insurer) proceeded as subrogee of Community College District No. 508 d/b/a City Colleges of Chicago and CMO, a Joint Venture. The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District (Appellate Court) addressed whether Insurer – who issued a builder’s risk policy to insure a building during construction – could subrogate on behalf of the building owner, City Colleges of Chicago (City Colleges), who was part of the joint venture and an additional named insured, but who had not been directly paid for the underlying loss. The Appellate Court determined that the policy language established that the carrier was contractually permitted to subrogate on behalf of all additional named insureds on the policy, including the building owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

September 05, 2023 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On July 17, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) No. 652, adding Section 801.1 to the California Evidence Code. This section provides additional requirements for expert opinions relating to medical causation. In particular, it allows a party not bearing the burden of proof to offer a contrary expert in response to an expert proffered by a party bearing the burden of proof as to medical causation who is required to opine that causation exists to a reasonable medical probability. The contrary expert may only be proffered, however, if he or she is able to opine that an alternative medical causation is one that exists to a reasonable medical probability. Section 801.1, however, does not preclude an expert witness from testifying that a specific matter cannot meet a reasonable degree of probability in the applicable field. With respect to medical causation, a “reasonable degree of probability” means that the expert is testifying that a particular event or source was more likely than not the cause of a person’s injuries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES