Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry

September 23, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In a decision that will likely be welcomed by the electrical power, chemical manufacturing, and petroleum and coal products manufacturing industries, on July 19, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in the case of Idaho Conservation League et al., v. Wheeler, that EPA acted reasonably in deciding not to issue CERCLA financial responsibility regulations for the hardrock mining industry. CERCLA (a.k.a., Superfund) was enacted in 1980 and amended in 1986, and Section 108(b) of CERCLA provides that EPA shall promulgate requirements that classes of facilities establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility “consistent with the degree and duration of risk” associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances. However, no action was taken to implement Section 108(b) until 2009, and then only as the result of litigation challenging EPA’s failure to act. EPA and the petitioners agreed to a schedule by which the agency would propose financial responsibility rules for the hardrock mining industry—which was the initial class of industry facilities selected for the possible application of these rules—and the DC Circuit approved this schedule in 2016, which contained the court’s caveat that EPA retained the discretion not to issue any rule at the conclusion of the rulemaking. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Risk Transfer: The Souffle of Construction Litigation

December 13, 2022 — Alexa Stephenson & Ivette Kincaid - Kahana Feld
Who does not love a good souffle?! Enthusiasts will know that a great souffle is not something you can obtain quickly. Rather, it is common in restaurants to order the souffle as dessert at the beginning of the meal because it takes an hour to bake. Risk transfer – like a good souffle – also requires planning, preparation, and the right ingredients. In construction litigation, attorneys are often not retained until after the project has been completed for several years as the dispute between the homeowner and the general contractor or developer took time to escalate to formal litigation. A significant part of defense counsel’s legal analysis involves assessing and evaluating risk transfer opportunities. For example, in the case of a general contractor or developer who did not self-perform the construction work but instead retained subcontractors to do so, counsel will assess if risk can be transferred from the general contractor or developer to the subcontractors who performed the work which the homeowners allege is defective. In other words, a developer or general contractor can reduce their risk (i.e. liability and money owed) by transferring said risk (i.e. pointing the finger at) to a third party. Sounds easy, right? Unfortunately, just like the souffle making process, it is easier said than done. This task can be exceedingly difficult in the absence of contracts that contain strong indemnity and insurance provisions – the essential ingredients to effect risk transfer. Worry not! We have provided “baking” instructions for you below to help you get a great risk transfer souffle time and again. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fraud and Construction Contracts- Like Oil and Water?

December 31, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We have discussed the interaction of fraud and breach of contract actions on occasion here at Construction Law Musings. In most cases the two do not mix. Between the economic loss rule and the general desire of Virginia courts to keep contract actions and tort actions separate, most of the time it is impossible to make a fraud action relating to a contract stick in a construction context. The Virginia Supreme Court recently confirmed this fraud/contract distinction. As discussed in the Virginia Real Estate Land Use & Construction Law blog (Thanks Heidi!), Station No. 2, LLC v. Lynch, et. al. strongly re-states the Virginia courts’ strong reluctance to allow a breach of contract turn into a claim for fraud. Without re-iterating the great discussion of the facts of the case found in the post by Heidi Meizner, suffice it to say that certain contractual promises between and among the parties were not fulfilled much to Station 2, LLC’s detriment. 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

Insurance Broker Stole NY Contractor's Payment, Indictment Alleges

March 21, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A New York contractor was unknowingly uninsured as it worked on 14 Manhattan projects over four years because its insurance broker was pocketing its payments, according to an indictment. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project

May 20, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) would like to congratulate the winners of the BHA Has a Nice Swing golf game for charity at the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. With the help of the participants, BHA was able to raise $1925 to benefit the Wounded Warrior Project. BHA would also like to congratulate the raffle winners. Prizes included a DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ Drone and Dodger baseball tickets. The Wounded Warrior Project’s purpose is to raise awareness and enlist the public’s aid for the needs of injured service members; to help injured service members aid and assist each other; and to provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of injured service members. Learn more about the Wounded Warrior Project... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects

March 11, 2024 — Patrick McKnight - The Dispute Resolver
Recent reforms to certain state retainage laws have reduced the lawful amount of withholding permitted on construction projects. In theory, retainage allows an owner to mitigate the risk of incomplete or defective work by withholding a certain portion of payment until the construction project is substantially complete. Recent statutory developments in Washington, New York, and Georgia represent significant changes in how much an owner may retain on applicable construction projects in those jurisdictions. The details of each state’s retainage laws vary in many important respects. Most states set caps at 5% or 10%, with important variations depending on the type of project and the amount of progress completed. Some states require retainage to be held in an escrow account, but most do not. Many federal construction projects allow up to 10% retainage, while other federal agencies do not require any retention. See 48 CFR § 52.232-5(e) - Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts. The ongoing motivation for retainage reform is typically framed in terms of reducing delays in getting payment to subcontractors who complete their scope of work on time and free from defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

July 30, 2015 — William L. Porter – The Porter Law Group Bulletin
Federal public work construction projects are unique in that there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available. Furthermore, although a remedy is available by proceeding against the original contractor’s payment bond under a federal law known as the “Miller Act” and its corresponding Federal Regulations (40 USCS 3131 et seq. and 48 CFR 28.101-1 et seq.), this remedy is not available to all subcontractors or suppliers. In addition, there are circumstances where a different form of security can be substituted for the payment bond (40 USCS 3131(b)(2)). Among those who generally cannot sue on the Miller Act Payment Bond are third-tier subcontractors and suppliers to suppliers. (See J.W. Bateson Company v. Board of Trustees, 434 U.S. 586 (1978)). As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor may bring a lawsuit against the bond company providing the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first tier subcontractor may bring such an action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Collapse Claim Fails Due To Defectively Designed Roof and Deck

May 28, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's claim for collapse of his roof and deck failed due to defective design and other exclusions under the policy. Dudar v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52706 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2024). The insured submitted a claim to State Farm for damage to the roof ("Roof Claim"). State Farm's adjuster placed a ladder on the deck to access the roof and a portion of the deck collapsed. The insured then reported a claim to State Farm for damage to the deck ("Deck Claim"). The claims were denied and suit was filed. The roof had leaked on several occasions prior to submission of the Roof Claim. On February 25, 2022, the insured discovered that a branch had cut a hole in the tarp, causing water to leak into the home. The insured performed repairs on the roof. On March 8, 2022, a storm caused more water to seep through the tarp into the ceilings and walls. Thereafter, the Roof Claim was submitted. The damage from the leaking roof and the deck collapse were caused by rotting. The rotting, in turn, was caused by a combination of defective building design and resulting water damage from rain and storms over the years. The roof and deck were constructed to provide mutual support to one another. The roof did not contain an adequate slope, which caused water to seep down into the walls and flooring rather than to flow downward and away from the property. Over time, penetrating water caused portions of the roof, the floor, and the supporting wall between the roof and deck to rot. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES