Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The Rise of Modular Construction – Impacts for Consideration

December 04, 2023 — Chad V. Theriot - ConsensusDocs
Modular construction is not new. However, over the last several years, modular construction has seen significant growth with no signs of slowing down. In 2021, global modular construction represented a market of approximately $130 billion and is projected to reach upwards of $235 billion by 2031. Modular construction growth in the US is largely due to the technological advances and globalization. In general, modular construction involves the manufacturing and fabrication of standardized components of a structure in an off-site, controlled environment. Once those components are fabricated, they are then transported to the project site and assembled by an installer or contractor. Moving these fabrication and construction activities off-site allows the fabricator to control the quality standards over the fabrication process and gain the economic advantage of an assembly line and manufacturing process. This leads to a reduction in cost. This cost savings is then passed on to the owner, thereby driving down the overall price of construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chad V. Theriot, Jones Walker (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Theriot may be contacted at ctheriot@joneswalker.com

Residential Construction Surges in Durham

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Third quarter residential construction permits in Durham, North Carolina were up 72% over the third quarter of last year, for a total of 1,770 new residential units. There was a large increase in the value of the construction contracts as well, with construction contracts reaching $151.3 million, more than $42 million over the same period in 2012. Ted Conner of the Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce said that he didn’t “think we’re going to continue to see that frenetic, high level of activity, but it’s still very active.” One reason for increased residential construction is a lack of available apartment spaces, which is also sending rents up in the area. Although much of the new construction will be middle- to upper-end, the greater availability should help all renters. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Independent Tort Doctrine (And Its Importance)

October 24, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A non-construction raises an important legal principle. Here it is because it applies to construction disputes. It actually applies to many business-type disputes. It is based on what is widely referred to as the independent tort doctrine: Florida law does not allow a party damaged by a breach of contract to recover exactly the same contract damages via a tort claim. “It is a fundamental, long-standing common law principle that a plaintiff may not recover in tort for a contract dispute unless the tort is independent of any breach of contract. A plaintiff bringing both a breach of contract and a tort claim must allege, in addition to the breach of contract, “some other conduct amounting to an independent tort.” Bedoyan v. Samra, 47 Fla.L.Weekly D1955a (Fla. 3d 2022) (internal citations omitted). 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

Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

May 13, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there the duty to defend a suit filed by the FDIC against officers and directors was not excluded by the insured versus insured provision in the policy. W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins. Co. - Puerto Rico, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5943 (1st Cir. March 31, 2014). Regulators ordered the closure of the insured bank and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver. FDIC concluded certain bank directors and officers had breached their fiduciary duty by jeopardizing the bank's financial soundness. The FDIC concluded these breaches had caused more than $367 million in losses and demanded reimbursement by the directors and officers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

February 01, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents. In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. 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

Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

September 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's claim for loss based on theft and water leaks was not covered under the property policy. SJP Props. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97216 (E.D. Mo. July 27, 2015). SJP Properties bought and sold foreclosed properties. On July 13, 2006, it purchased at a foreclosure sale a property in St. Louis. The property was not inspected before or after the purchase, and sat vacant for more than two years. No one checked regularly on the property. The property was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mount Vernon, effective from March 8, 2006 to March 8, 2009. The policy covered vandalism, but excluded loss caused by theft. An exception for the exclusion provided coverage for "building damage caused by the breaking in or exiting of burglars." The policy also excluded loss or damage caused by fungus, wet rot, dry rot and bacteria or water leaks for a period of 14 days or more. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

“You’re Out of Here!” -- CERCLA (Superfund) Federal Preemption of State Environmental Claims in State Courts

October 20, 2016 — Joshua J. Anderson & John E. Van Vlear – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C § 9601 et seq. (“CERCLA”), commonly referred to as “Superfund,” is a federal statute that provides funding and cost-recovery to address our nation’s worst hazardous-waste sites. While CERCLA generally vests United States District Courts with exclusive original jurisdiction over all related controversies, section 113(h) of the Act delays such jurisdiction while the United States Environmental Protection Agency supervises or undertakes environmental response action plans. What impact does this delayed federal jurisdiction have on state law claims brought in state courts? Short answer: “You’re out of here!” Litigants are precluded from bringing claims in state court that “challenge” environmental response actions under CERCLA during the pendency of those actions. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua J. Anderson, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP and John E. Van Vlear, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP Mr. Anderson may be contacted at joshua.anderson@ndlf.com Mr. Van Vlear may be contacted at john.vanvlear@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions

February 03, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Joella v. Cole, 2019 PA Super. 313, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered whether a tenant, alleged by the landlord’s property insurance carrier to have carelessly caused a fire, was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s policy. The court found that the tenant was an implied co-insured because the lease stated that the landlord would procure insurance for the building, which created a reasonable expectation that the tenant would be a co-insured under the policy. Since the tenant was an implied co-insured on the policy, the insurance carrier could not maintain a subrogation action against the tenant. This case confirms that Pennsylvania follows a case-by-case approach when determining whether a tenant was an implied co-insured on a landlord’s insurance policy. The Joella case stems from a fire at an apartment building in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The landlord’s property insurance carrier paid the landlord $180,000 to repair the damages resulting from the fire. In March 2018, the insurer brought a subrogation action against Annie Cole, a tenant in the building, alleging that Ms. Cole’s negligent use of an extension cord caused the fire. Ms. Cole raised the affirmative defense that she was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy. The subrogating insurer filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Ms. Cole’s defense. In response, Ms. Cole filed a cross motion for partial judgment, arguing that because the lease specified that the landlord would maintain fire insurance for the building, there was a reasonable expectation that she would be a co-insured on that policy. The trial court found in favor of Ms. Cole, holding that the landlord’s insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against her because she was an implied co-insured of the landlord’s insurance policy under the terms of the lease. The landlord’s insurer filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES