Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

California Contractors – You Should Know That Section 7141.5 May Be Your Golden Ticket

February 18, 2020 — Amy L. Pierce, Mark A. Oertel & John Lubitz - Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Under California’s Contractors’ State License Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7000 et seq., all contractors’ and subcontractors’ licenses expire two years from the last day of the month in which the license issued, or two years from the date on which the renewed license last expired. The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) sends licensees a renewal application 60 to 90 days prior to the date the license is set to expire. Most contractors have various controls in place to make sure that the renewal application is timely filed and the required fee paid. Even so, we are only human and mistakes are made, and a renewal application filing deadline can be missed for a variety of reasons, e.g., the licensee’s mailing address has not been updated on the CSLB’s records, the individual responsible for filing the license renewal is out on leave, there has been a death in the family or a serious health issue, etc. Quoting Robert Burns, even “[t]he best-laid schemes of mice and men go oft awry” (To a Mouse, 1786). General contractors should be cognizant of both their and their subcontractors’ license renewal obligations and deadlines. If a licensee missed timely filing its renewal application, Business & Professions Code Section 7141.5may provide some relief. Section 7141.5 provides that the Registrar of Contractors,

“may grant the retroactive renewal of a license if the licensee requests the retroactive renewal in a petition to the registrar, files an application for renewal on a form prescribed by the registrar, and pays the appropriate renewal fee and delinquency fee prescribed by this chapter. This section shall only apply for a period not to exceed 90 days from the due date and only upon a showing by the contractor that the failure to renew was due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.”

Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP attorneys Amy Pierce, Mark Oertel and John Lubitz Ms. Pierce may be contacted at Amy.Pierce@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Oertel may be contacted at Mark.Oertel@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Lubitz may be contacted at John.Lubitz@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Using the Prevention Doctrine

April 22, 2019 — David Erhart - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
The following scenario happens regularly in the construction industry. A contractor on a project reaches out to a subcontractor to perform work. Excited about the prospect of performing the work, the subcontractor signs a contract and puts it nose to the grindstone. After dutifully completing the work the subcontractor turns to the contractor and asks to be paid. But, the contractor refuses saying that there is a provision in the subcontract that says the contractor is only obligated to pay the subcontractor if the contractor receives payment from the owner. So the contractor has completed the work, but has no money to show for it. One potential remedy for a subcontractor in this situation is the use of the prevention doctrine. “Under the prevention doctrine, ‘if a promisor prevents or hinders fulfillment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived or excused.’” Cox v. SNAP, Inc., 859 F.3d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 7171, 725 (4th Cir. 2000)). “Put simply, ‘where a party to a contract is the cause of the failure of the performance of the obligation due him or her, that party cannot in any way take advantage of that failure.’” Haddon Hous Assocs v. United States, 711 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245; Williston, § 39:4). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Erhart, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Erhart may be contacted at derhart@grsm.com

The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

May 16, 2018 — John J. Kozak, Esq. - Florida Construction Law News
Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies typically include a “your work” exclusion, excluding coverage for “’property damage’ to ‘your work’ arising out of it or any part of it and included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard.’” These CGL policies define “your work,” in pertinent part, as “work or operations performed by you or on your behalf.” (emphasis added). As the recent case of Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. JWN Construction, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20529 (S.D. Fla. 2018) reminds us, the “your work” exclusion can serve to eliminate coverage for a general contractor, even when property damage is caused by a subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John J. Kozak, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Kozak may be contacted at john.kozak@csklegal.com

Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

December 22, 2019 — Robert Howard, Alexander Walker and Matt Olhausen - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Developers in California know that getting approval to build new housing projects can be extremely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. But a new policy is finally coming into full effect which could help developers cut through those barriers. SB 35, enacted in 2017, streamlines the approval process for housing developments in areas with inadequate housing supply, so long as the developments meet certain criteria. We have written elsewhere about the initial impacts of SB 35. SB 35 has successfully allowed some developers to obtain their entitlements quickly and easily through a streamlined process, but some local governments have resisted the use of SB 35. For example, the City of Los Altos denied an application that attempted to obtain streamlining through SB 35, prompting a nonprofit housing organization to sue. In Cupertino, the Planning Commission Chairman advocated in April 2019 for rescinding the SB 35 approval of the redevelopment of the Vallco Mall, which would include over 2,400 units of housing, while some residents have sued to block the development. As a result, it is crucial for developers to understand the details of SB 35 and make sure to meet all of its requirements. Any misstep may allow a recalcitrant local government to deny that a development project qualifies for SB 35 treatment and attempt to block it. In November 2018, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released Guidelines to clarify the criteria for SB 35 and assist cities in determining whether projects qualify for streamlining. Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury attorneys Robert Howard, Alexander Walker and Matt Olhausen Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Walker may be contacted at alexander.walker@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontractor Strikes Out in its Claims Against Federal Government

July 08, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Is it a good idea for a subcontractor to sue the federal government? A recent case would suggest NO–way too many huge hurdles for the subcontractor to overcome. No matter how creative the arguments may be, it’s a high mountain to climb. In Fox Logistics & Construction Co. v. U.S., 2024 WL 2807677 (Fed.Cl. 2024), a subcontractor sued the federal government when it was not paid by the prime contractor. The subcontractor claimed it was a third-party beneficiary under the government’s modifications to the prime contractor’s payment procedure, or alternatively it had an implied-in-fact contract with the government. The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The subcontractor, while creative, struck out in its claims based on the hurdles in a subcontractor suing the federal government. This case involved upgrading an air force base. The subcontractor performed most of the work. The prime contractor had cash flow problems and did not pay the subcontractor. The government got involved to enforce provisions of its contract to force the prime contractor to pay subcontractors and even modified the payment procedure by having future payments to the prime contractor deposited into a new bank account that government could monitor. This ultimately did not work, and the prime contractor filed for bankruptcy. The subcontractor claimed it was owed millions–apparently, it was not able to recover the money through the prime contractor’s bankruptcy—and pursued claims against the federal government in an effort to recover money it was owed. 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

New York Court Enforces Construction Management Exclusion

March 14, 2018 — Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
In its recent decision in Houston Cas. Co. v. Cavan Corp. of NY, Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1138 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t Feb. 20, 2018), a New York appellate court had occasion to consider the application of a construction management exclusion in a general liability policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

April 01, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
One of the attendees of the Goldleaf Surety presentation asked a great question about reducing retention under the Nebraska Construction Prompt Pay Act, Nebraska Revised Statutes, 45-1201-45-1211. He wanted to know whether there was any way to reduce and recover retainage during the project. The short answer is retainage should be reduced half way through the project, but there is no right to recover retainge for work performed during the first half of the project. Retainage in Nebraska Under section 45-1204 of the Prompt Pay Act, a contractor may withhold up to 10% retainage. A contract that allows for greater retainage is not enforceable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

September 15, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
A few months ago, a decision by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Georgia Department of Labor v. RTT Associates, Inc. provided a strict rule for contractors who work with state agencies to determine whether a state agency has waived its sovereign immunity. The issue as framed by the Court was “whether an agency’s waiver of immunity from a breach of contract claim as a result of entering into a written contract remains intact in the event the contract is extended without a written document signed by both parties expressly amending the contract, as required by its terms.” The case involved a contract executed on March 1, 2012, by a contractor, RTT Associates, Inc. (RTT), and the Georgia Department of Labor (DOL), whereby RTT was to develop certain computer software for the DOL by the completion date, June 30, 2012. The contract required that amendments be in writing and fully executed by both parties. Time was of the essence and RTT’s obligation under the contract survived the expiration or termination of the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES