Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Japan Quake Triggers Landslides, Knocks Power Plant Offline

September 10, 2018 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
A magnitude 6.7 earthquake occurred on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido on Sept. 6, leaving at least seven dead and damaging buildings and structures in the region, including a 1,650MW coal-fired thermal power plant that was taken offline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “D’Oh!”

August 12, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
The U.S. DOL found itself on June 24 on the wrong end of a preliminary injunction concerning recent changes to the Davis-Bacon Act. The lawsuit, initiated in Texas federal court by the Associated General Contractors of America and other concerned citizens, sought a preliminary injunction barring implementation and enforcement of “specified portions of § 5.2 and § 5.5(e) of the DOL’s ‘Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations’” – the “Final Rule,” published August 23, 2023. After determining the appropriateness of the “standing” of the plaintiffs based upon the plaintiffs being “adversely affected” by the Final Rule, the federal court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule. In noting its disagreement with the Final Rule, the court stated:

“… the Final Rule amends the DBA [the Davis-Bacon Act] by imposing a stealth selfimplementing DBA requirement in the contract by an operation-of-law provision that contradicts the express statutory language of the Act [the court bristling at the idea that contracts might exclude with impunity the otherwise mandated DBA clauses]. Further, the Final Rule amends the Act to extend the DBA to apply to workers who are not mechanics and laborers, and to extend the scope of the work covered by DBA to include work is not performed ‘directly on the site of the work.’

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

May 26, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. American Building Materials, Inc., No. 8:10-CV-313-T-24-AEP (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2011), insured drywall supplier ABM was sued by general contractor KB Homes seeking damages because property damage to houses built by KB Homes using defective Chinese drywall supplied by ABM. ABM’s CGL insurer Auto-Owners defended ABM under a reservation of rights and filed suit against ABM and KB Homes seeking a judicial declaration of no to duty to defend or indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit. On cross motions for summary, the federal district trial court directed entry of judgment in favor of ABM and KB Homes and against Auto-Owners, holding that Auto-Owners had a duty to defend and indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

May 03, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In this podcast episode, my guest is Andrew Weinreich. We talk about the future of homebuilding against the backdrop of Andrew’s new podcast Predicting Our Future. Is construction ripe for disruption? Andrew believes that homebuilding is much closer to a tipping point than ever before. In this interview, he explains why. “In the United States, modular construction significantly lags behind what we see elsewhere around the world,” Andrew reminds. “When everything you can imagine today, from the paperclip to your smartphone is made in a factory, why is it that -certainly in this country- we associate homes made in factory with the lowest of low end homes.” “The first question is: why is that? And the second question is: could that change? Could we be on the precipice of looking at the next Tesla; not for car-building, but for homebuilding.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

Green Home Predictions That Are Best Poised to Come True in 2014 and Beyond (guest post)

July 16, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
Today, a guest post on the green design issues that are becoming realities from Penny Olmos, who is associated with Holloway Houston, Inc. a leading industrial lifting equipment manufacturing company. Welcome, Penny! The scorching heat singed us and the winter wave chilled us — more than ever before. What are we heading to? Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, tornadoes and extreme temperatures? Mother Nature is warning us in myriad ways. And the good news is that we are heeding her calls after long. Saving our natural resources and going green has found many takers. We have seen many eco-friendly homes and buildings designed and created in the last decade. Green homes are here to stay. We look at the popular green home design and construction trends in 2014 that are about to transform the landscape of green realty. Rise of Net Zero Energy Homes It seemed impossible until a couple of years ago but 2014 will witness a rise in net zero energy homes. These are homes with zero net energy consumption. The total amount of energy used by these buildings annually equals the amount of renewable energy created on the property. This is the greenest and the most energy efficient house you can possess. And you do not need to cut down on any of your comforts. There are heating, cooling, entertainment and utility appliances functioning in the house like they would in any other home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the insured was only entitled to the actual cost value of his loss, not the replacement cost. Lytle v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 756 (Sept. 30, 2015). The insured's home was built around 1903. On June 21, 2011, the insured discovered damage to his home because of a severe storm. He made a claim with his insurer, Country Mutual. The policy contained a depreciation holdback provision. The provision said the insurer would not pay more than the actual cash value until the actual repair or replacement was complete. If the insured elected to accept actual cash value, he would have one year from the date of the loss to repair or replace the damaged property and request the difference between the actual cash value and the replacement cost. 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

Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations

October 19, 2017 — Michael C. Zisa & Susan Elliott – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Two recent decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Federal Claims highlight that sureties and bond producers are not immune to the potentially severe consequences of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and related federal fraud statutes. In each case, the Court determined that sureties and bond producers can face potential liability under these fraud statutes for direct and indirect submission of false claims to the federal government. Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Susan Elliott, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com Ms. Elliott may be contacted at selliott@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.

First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”

The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”

Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”

The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”

Read the court’s decision…