FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Great news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation. New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Work resumed after nearly three years on an office tower in Santa Clara, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Work had stalled on the building due to the economy, but now the developer is planning a second five-story building on the site. Other dormant projects in the area are also getting restarted. Santa Clara County saw the addition of 1,800 construction jobs in June.



A spokesperson for the Operating Engineers Local 3 in Alameda told the paper, “two years ago we had five thousand folks on the out-of-work list. It’s now down to about 1,700.”

Read the full story…

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

---

Congratulations to Partner John O’Meara for Being Named as One of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators for Three Consecutive Years!

September 20, 2021 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Please join Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP in congratulating Woodland Hills Partner John O’Meara for being selected as one of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators for the third year in a row! Membership among America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators highlights the accomplishments of the nation’s most esteemed and skilled Civil Defense attorneys. Only 100 attorneys in each state receive this honor and candidates for membership are identified through third-party research or peer nominations by America’s Top 100 or elite attorneys in the community. Candidates are judged by the attorney’s lifetime legal achievements, professional experience, significant case results, peer reputation, client satisfaction, other notable honors, media notoriety, and community impact. Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

July 06, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
AXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies. AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses

January 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that in calculating interest on the expense of repairing construction defects would start at the time that the defect was repaired. In 2009, the Colorado State Legislature introduced a bill that would have made homeowners eligible for interest back to the purchase date of their homes. The Colorado Springs Business Journal notes that the Colorado Springs Housing and Building Association is concerned that the legislature might take up the issue again, in which case, the HBA would oppose it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

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

---

Settlement Reached in California Animal Shelter Construction Defect Case

May 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A construction defect case involving an animal shelter in Healdsburg, California has settled after two years of litigation, according to The Press Democrat. The $3.5 million, 7,500-square foot building had been “built largely with a behest from the estate of the late vintner Rodney Strong and his wife, Charlotte.” However, “shortly before the facility could be completed in late 2011, general contractor Syd Kelly went bankrupt. Unpaid sub-contractors filed liens for payment against the Healdsburg Animal Shelter, which in turn alleged construction and design defects in the building.” The Press Democrat reported that “[t]he most visible signs of problems were cracks in the cement foundation.” Robert Wilkie, the Healdsburg Animal Shelter board’s secretary-treasurer, stated that the shelter is “perfectly structurally viable and a rather attractive building” and that “the defects that make it not usable today can be mitigated in a variety of different ways.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Reaffirming the Importance of Appeal Deadlines Under the Contract Disputes Act

January 26, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) decision emphasizes the importance of deadlines for appealing a contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”). On July 22, 2016, the COFC granted the consolidation of two naval contract dispute appeals totaling nearly $12.4 million in response to Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba’s (“NTS”) motion to resolve two Requests for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) in the same forum. See Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. United States, No. 15-885C, 2016 WL 4009886, at *5 (Fed. Cl. July 22, 2016). NTS’s motion before the COFC sought to transfer an appeal of a REA before the COFC to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), where another appeal of a REA arising under the same contract was presently on appeal. The COFC rejected NTS’s appeal to transfer the REA to the ASBCA because NTS did not appeal the REA within the 90-day limit under the CDA. Instead, the COFC allowed NTS to transfer the REA before the ASBCA to the COFC because timeliness was not an issue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

---