FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Four Common Construction Contracts

August 26, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Like Baskin Robins, construction contracts come in a variety of different flavors although, thankfully, significantly fewer than 31. Here are four of the more common types of construction contracts between project owners and contractors: Fixed Price Fixed price construction contracts, also commonly referred to as “lump sum” or “stipulated sum” contracts, are the most common types of construction contracts. As its name suggests, under a fixed price contract a contractor agrees to construct a project for a “fixed” or agreed upon price. 1. Benefits: Fixed price construction contracts provide price predictability for project owners because absent changes in the scope of work, unforeseen conditions, or other circumstances which might cause the “fixed” price of the contract to go up or down, the contractor is required to complete the work for the agreed upon price. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

July 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Many, many projects require the use of a crane. The skyline is oftentimes filled with the sight of cranes—one after the other. Most of the time, the cranes are leased from an equipment supplier. What happens if the crane (or any large, leased equipment) gets damaged? I wrote an article regarding a builder’s risk carrier NOT covering damage to a crane from a storm based on a common exclusion. Another case, Ajax Bldg. Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2004), had a similar result. In this case, a prime contractor leased a crane from an equipment supplier. The crane was used by the structural concrete subcontractor. The crane collapsed during the subcontractor’s work. The supplier sued both the contractor and subcontractor. The prime contractor was defended under a contractor’s equipment liability policy and the subcontractor was defended under a general liability policy it procured for its work on the project. Ultimately, a settlement was reached where the subcontractor’s liability insurer paid a bulk of the damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

January 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

While building's first collapse was not covered, there were disputed facts regarding the second collapse, leading to a reversal of the order granting summary judgment to the insurer on both collapses. Intergroup Int'l Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos, 2017 Ohio app. LEXIS 5099 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017). Intergroup bought a building after it was inspected. While leaks on the roof were repaired and a roof truss that was sagging was replaced, the inspector found the roof to be in good shape.

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

---

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

August 14, 2018 — Gregory Capps - White and Williams LLP
On July 18, 2018, in Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., et al., No. 24 MAP 2017 (Pa. July 18, 2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court quashed the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association’s (PMA) appeal seeking review of a ruling denying its motion for summary judgment for an order that coverage for the cleanup of a toxic waste site is limited to the policy in effect when property damage was first discovered. In short, the court found the lower court’s ruling only narrowed the dispute between the parties and is, therefore, interlocutory and not appealable at this time. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory Capps, White & Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

January 08, 2024 — Janeen M. Thomas - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim. In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at JThomas@sdvlaw.com

---

Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

A post on the blog of Liberty Building Forensics Group find fault with the New Jersey Home Warranty and Builders’ Registration Act for not being stringent enough. The poster notes the coverage given under the bill. In the first year, builders are responsible to remedy faulty workmanship and materials and major structural defects. While other protections expire in the first or second year, there is a ten year coverage of major construction defects.

The blogger finds fault with the exclusion New Jersey law places on these claims, arguing that “due to the stringent definition of ‘major construction defects,” the warranty affords no coverage unless the house is practically collapsing.” The bill excludes leaks, cracks, and mold, and further limits claims if the homeowner has failed to inform the builder or insurer of defects, failure to maintain the home, and alterations made by the homeowner.

The intent of the New Jersey law is given as “requiring that newly constructed homes conform to certain construction and quality standards as well as to provide buyers of new homes with insurance-backed warranty protection in the event such standards are not met.” It’s argued in the piece that it instead serves to “strip homeowners of any meaningful means of recovery for discovered construction defects.”

Read the full story…

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

---

90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

July 22, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Mechanic’s liens are a big topic here at Construction Law Musings. I’ve discussed everything from the picky nature of this powerful payment tool to the changes that are upcoming on July 1, 2019. Given the strict way that the form and timing of a Virginia mechanic’s lien is so critical, I thought a quick reminder was in order. Two numbers that are critical to the timing and content of any mechanic’s lien are 90 and 150, both found in Va. Code 43-4. 90 days is the time from the last date of work (not invoicing), or last date of the last month in which work was done given proper circumstances. The 90 days prescibes the time during which a contractor can properly record a valid lien. This is a hard deadline and is 90 days, not three months. Miss this deadline and no matter what the type of payment that has not been made (something discussed below), the contractor will lose its lien rights. This is the easier of the two numbers to both understand and apply. Count 90 days from last non-corrective or warranty work and that is your hard out for filing. 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

---

Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

July 14, 2016 — Michael B. McClellan & Jason L. Morris – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) into law, creating a private federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. This landmark legislation, a product of bipartisan backing and significant support from the business community, will affect businesses and individuals operating in almost every economic sector across the country. The DTSA will potentially be at issue any time an employee with access to confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information moves on to a competitor or launches a startup that competes with the former employer. This will be true so long as the product or service that the trade secret relates to is either used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce. Under present commerce clause jurisprudence, the vast majority of businesses providing products and services in the United States will be affected by this new law. The DTSA will provide, for the first time, a codified federal civil remedy for misappropriation of trade secrets. Although most states have adopted some version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), there remains significant variation between the states in their application of the UTSA and litigants face significantly different statutory frameworks depending upon which state holds jurisdiction over the dispute. In addition, prior to this new law, litigants were limited to pursuing their claims for misappropriation of trade secrets in state courts, unless federal diversity jurisdiction applied to the dispute. The DTSA changes that dynamic, providing original federal subject matter jurisdiction over trade secret disputes. Reprinted courtesy of Michael B. McClellan, Newmeyer & Dillion and Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer & Dillion Mr. McClellan may be contacted at Michael.mcclellan@ndlf.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at Jason.morris@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---