Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Owners Should Serve Request for Sworn Statement of Account on Lienor

August 10, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When an owner receives a construction lien, an owner should serve the lienor with a Request for Sworn Statement of Account. The Request for Sworn Statement is authorized by Florida Statute s. 713.16(2) and should be in the following form: REQUEST FOR SWORN STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WARNING: YOUR FAILURE TO FURNISH THE REQUESTED STATEMENT, SIGNED UNDER OATH, WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE FURNISHING OF A FALSE STATEMENT WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF YOUR LIEN. To: (Lienor’s name and address) The undersigned hereby demands a written statement under oath of his or her account showing the nature of the labor or services performed and to be performed, if any, the materials furnished, the materials to be furnished, if known, the amount paid on account to date, the amount due, and the amount to become due, if known, as of the date of the statement for the improvement of real property identified as (property description) . (name of contractor) (name of the lienor’s customer, as set forth in the lienor’s Notice to Owner, if such notice has been served) (signature and address of owner) (date of request for sworn statement of account) From both an owner and lienor’s perspective, the bolded, capitalized language is key. It states that if the lienor fails to respond under oath within 30 days, it will LOSE its lien. That is a very punitive measure for a lienor’s failure to respond, meaning a lienor should absolutely respond, no questions asked. Plus, a lienor’s response to a Request for Sworn Statement of Account is not a burdensome ordeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.

December 31, 2014 — Heather M. Anderson – Colorado Construction Litigation
In a recent case arising out of a denial of coverage for alleged construction defect claims concerning a pre-fabricated home, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado applied the 10th Circuit’s determination of what can constitute an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. See Wardcraft Homes, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4852117 (D. Colo. September 29, 2014). William and Grace Stuhr sued Wardcraft, which manufactured pre-fabricated homes at a facility in Fort Morgan, Colorado, because their home was not completed as scheduled and contained various defects. The Stuhrs filed suit against Wardcraft alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Wardcraft tendered the Stuhrs’ complaint to Employers Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”), which denied coverage under its policy and denied any duty to defend. According to EMC, the Stuhrs’ alleged construction defects were not property damages and there was no occurrence in connection with faulty workmanship. Approximately two and a half years after they filed their initial complaint, the Stuhrs filed an amended complaint. Wardcraft did not tender this amended complaint to EMC, and first informed EMC about the amended complaint about a year after it was filed. A month prior, Wardcraft settled with the Stuhrs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at Anderson@hhmrlaw.com

New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards

October 09, 2018 — Christopher Daniels - Construction Executive
American Society of Safety Professionals’ industry consensus standard, ANSI/ASSP A10.21 – 2018 Safety Requirements for Safe Construction and Demolition of Wind Generation/Turbine Facilities, is the first standard to identify and address hazards specific to wind turbine construction. It includes nearly a dozen appendices that provide additional consideration and guidance for hazards that vary between projects, turbines and geographical areas. The new A10.21 standard starts by requiring a site hazard identification prior to construction commencing. It establishes the general contractor as the responsible party for site hazard identification assessment. This is because the general contractor is usually one of the first entities on site able to assess the various challenges/concerns such as: geography, utilities, environmental, etc. This assessment is usually done by driving the project site and identifying GPS coordinates of specific challenges. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Daniels, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Daniels may be contacted at chris.daniels@mortenson.com

Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

September 03, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday, Construction Law Musings welcomes Danielle Rodabaugh. Danielle is a principal for Surety Bonds.com, an agency that issues surety bonds to individuals and businesses across the nation. She writes articles to clarify bonding rules and regulations for those who have a stake in the surety bond industry–from contractors to telemarketers, and every professional in between. In construction we often value performance and payment bonds when considering how to protect the financial investments put into a project. We do so because these bonds provide a legal financial guarantee that the selected contractor will fulfill the contract. However, a third, equally protective kind of construction bond is often overlooked. Before an official contract has been agreed to and successfully executed, bid bonds guarantee that the selected low-bidder will officially enter into the contract at a later date. Bidders must submit a bid bond with their bid. Without doing so, the bidder becomes non-responsive–or an invalid candidate. Sometimes we overlook the benefits provided by this kind of Virginia surety bond, and yet they frequently act as the only legal protection for a project prior to groundbreaking. 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

Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

August 26, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
The American Arbitration Association has made some needed updates to their Construction Industry Arbitration and Mediation Rules, effective July 1, 2015. Among the changes listed at their website are:

A mediation step for all cases with claims of $100,000 or more (subject to the ability of any party to opt out).
Consolidation and joinder time frames and filing requirements to streamline these increasingly involved issues in construction arbitrations.
New preliminary hearing rules to provide more structure and organization to get the arbitration process on the right track from the beginning.
Information exchange measures to give arbitrators a greater degree of control to limit the exchange of information, including electronic documents.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims

September 23, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion to dismiss claims for improper claims handling when considering implementation of depreciation was denied. Morrison v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co, et al., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115664 (S. D. W. Va. July 1, 2024). Plaintiff's home suffered flood damage. The house was insured by Indian Harbor a surplus lines carrier that offered specialized and high risk property policies in West Virginia. Surplus lines policies were procured in West Virginia through a "surplus lines licensee." Here, Neptune Flood Inc. was the surplus lines licensee broker for Indian Harbor. Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc. was an administrator and loss adjuster involved in the claim. After the flood, Plaintiff notified defendants of the damage and immediately cleaned and repaired the house. Plaintiff asserted that Neptune was given notice of the loss and one of its agents made recommendations regarding the coverage available and conveyed the information to Peninsula and Indian Harbour. Plaintiff claimed that defendants misrepresented his policy coverage and made incorrect adjustments for depreciation based on Neptune's statements and recommendations. 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

Construction Site Blamed for Flooding

November 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A neighborhood in Pflugerville, Texas was during some recent heavy rains, and the residents blame the nearby construction of a new elementary school. During the rains, a retention wall around the site collapsed, leading to the water discharging to their neighborhood. One resident noted that he had about $16,000 worth of damage to his home and it has also cost him work. “I fix computers for a living, but I don’t have internet right now, and a lot of my stuff is wet,” said Erik Goeser, one of the Shallow Creek neighborhood residents. The county is looking into the situation but notes that “the construction site in question had recently been inspected and met all Travis County expectations, requirements and codes.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in a Premises Liability Matter

November 05, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Newport Beach Partner Courtney Serrato and Associate Joseph Real on Prevailing on a Motion for Summary Judgment for their Client! Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and premises liability against BWB&O’s client, a general contractor of a multi-level construction project. Plaintiff was injured after a fall at the construction project and filed suit against BWB&O’s client and another subcontractor. Plaintiff alleged BWB&O’s client was negligent and was responsible for causing Plaintiff’s fall. BWB&O filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing under the Privette Doctrine and its progeny, it neither owed nor breached any duty to Plaintiff and that no exception to the doctrine applied. Under the Privette Doctrine, when a person or entity hires an independent contractor to provide work or services, and one of the contractor’s employees is injured on the job, the hirer is generally not liable to the employee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES