FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice

July 30, 2015 — Scott Patterson – CD Coverage
In Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co., 2015 WL 3539755 (S.D. Fla. 2015), Altman was the general contractor for a residential condominium project. The condominium association served Altman with Chapter 558 notices. A Chapter 558 notice is a statutory prerequisite to a property owner’s construction defect lawsuit and provides the contractor with an opportunity to respond and avoid litigation. Altman demanded that its CGL insurer, Crum & Forster, provide a defense to the Chapter 558 notices by hiring counsel to represent Altman’s interests. While not disputing that the claimed defects may be covered under the policy, Crum & Forster denied any duty to defend against the notices on the basis that they did not constitute a “suit.” Altman filed suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

---

Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

May 16, 2018 — Christopher M. Horton - Smith Currie
All general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount. Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher M. Horton, Smith Currie
Mr. Horton may be contacted at cmhorton@smithcurrie.com

---

How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce

August 13, 2019 — Sarah Hofmann - Construction Executive
The word fraud might conjure up images of Wall Street executives led out to police cars in cuffs, or sleazy conmen with slicked-back hair. While these ideas might be popular in movies and TV, and often in the news, many small and large businesses fall victim to fraud. Whether it’s a trusted site manager who needed a little extra cash to cover an unexpected bill or the accountant who’s been on board for years and has been slowly siphoning an extra paycheck through a ghost employee each month, fraud might be hitting businesses without them even knowing it. The construction industry is hardly immune to such schemes. According to the ACFE’s 2018 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse, organizations lose an estimated 5% of their revenue each year to fraud. The median amount lost per instance of fraud was $130,000 across all industries, but fraud cases in the construction industry cost almost twice that much at $227,000 per fraud. They also last longer on average: fraud schemes in the construction industry continue for 24 months before being detected versus the overall median average of 16 months. The more time a scheme continues, the more money is lost for organizations. What types of fraud schemes are most common in the construction industry? The construction industry is more susceptible to certain types of fraud than other industries due to the nature of the work. The companies may be smaller in size leading to fewer resources to combat fraud and more trust among employees. Also, construction companies inherently deal with many vendors, subcontractors, bidding organizations and other various third parties, which can all pose fraud risks. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Hofmann, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Courthouse Reporter Series: Nebraska Court of Appeals Vacates Arbitration Award for Misconduct

November 18, 2024 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
Vacating an arbitration award is often seen as an uphill battle. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “courts may only vacate an arbitrator’s decision ‘only in very unusual circumstances.’” Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 568 (2013). The Federal Arbitration Act provides limited grounds to seek the vacatur of an arbitration award. In Lund-Ross Constructors v. Duke of Omaga, LLC, ___ N.W.3d ___, 33 Neb.App.73, the Nebraska Court of Appeals found that an arbitrator’s conduct warranted the partial vacatur of the award, which granted relief to a subcontractor who filed a counterclaim after the arbitration hearing had closed. Lund-Ross contracted with Duke of Omaha to build an apartment complex in Omaha. Lund-Ross, in turn, sub-contracted with A Raymond Plumbing. Following completion of the building, Owner withheld payment from Lund-Ross, who in turn, withheld payment from Raymond. Both Lund-Ross and Raymond filed mechanics liens and initiated suits; Raymond’s suit ultimately was dismissed for want of prosecution. Lund-Ross proceeded to arbitration with Owner, naming Raymond as a respondent. Raymond did not participate in the arbitration as a claimant at the time of the hearing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bwitry@lauriebrennan.com

---

Coverage Found for Faulty Workmanship Damaging Other Property

January 06, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The district court found that under Illinois law, the damage caused by the insured's faulty workmanship to portions of building beyond the scope of its own work was covered under a CGL policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Decorating Serv., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXS 159140 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 2015). 200 North Jefferson, LLC was the owner and developer of a 24- story condominium building. 200 North Jefferson retained as the general contractor McHugh Construction Co. McHugh Construction retained National Decorating Service, Inc. as the subcontractor to perform all painting work on the project. The Condominium Association sued 200 North Jefferson, McHugh Construction, MCZ/Jameson Development Group, LLC, National Decorating for faulty workmanship. The alleged damages included:(1) cracking of the exterior concrete walls, interior walls and ceilings; (2) significant leakage through the exterior concrete walls, balconies, and windows; (3) defects to the common elements of the building; and (4) damage to the interior ceilings, floors, interior painting, drywall and furniture in the units. 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

---

New York Court Grants Insured's Motion to Dismiss Construction Defect Case and Awards Fees to Insured

February 05, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The New York Supreme Court granted the insured's motion to dismiss the insurer's complaint seeking relief on its duty to indemnity and awarded fees to the insured. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Crystal Curtain Wall Sys. Corp., 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 22368 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 27, 2023). The case arose from a construction-related property damage action. Crystal entered a subcontract with the general contractor to design and install window and curtain systems in mixed residential and commercial buildings. When unit owners took possession, water infiltration during a rainstorm caused property damage and moldy conditions. The unit owners sued asserting claims against Crystal for the cost of repair or replacement of the allegedly defective curtain wall, damage to unit owners' personal property, diminution in value of the units, and delay damages consisting of increasing interest and carrying costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Hirer Not Liable Under Privette Doctrine Where Hirer Had Knowledge of Condition, but not that Condition Posed a Concealed Hazard

December 11, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Privette doctrine, so-called because of a case of the same name, Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 698 (1993), provides a rebuttable presumption that a hirer is not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of hired parties. In other words, if a property owner hires a contractor, and one of the contractor’s employees gets injured while working on the property, there is a rebuttable presumption that the property owner is not liable for the employee’s injuries, the rationale being that because the contractor is required to carry workers’ compensation insurance the contractor is in the better position to absorb losses incurred a workplace injury. There are, however, two widely recognized exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, is the Hooker exception, again named after a case of the same name, Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal.th 198 (2002), which provides that a hirer is liable for injuries to a hired parties’ employees, if the hirer retained control over the work being performed, negligently exercised that control, and the negative exercise of that control contributed to the employee’s injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Colorado Temporarily Requires Employers to Provide Sick Leave While Awaiting COVID-19 Testing

April 06, 2020 — Shawna Ruetz - The Grindstone Lewis Brisbois Labor & Employment Blog
On March 11, 2020, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) issued emergency rules, referred to as Colorado Health Emergency Leave with Pay (Colorado HELP) Rules, requiring employers in certain industries to provide four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms while awaiting test results for COVID-19, or to anyone who is under instructions from a healthcare provider to quarantine or isolate due to a risk of having COVID-19. These rules take effect immediately for 30 days, or longer if the state of emergency declared by Colorado Governor Polis continues. Which industries are covered by the Colorado HELP Rules?

• Leisure and hospitality;
• Food services;
• Child care;
• Education (including transportation, food service, and related work at educational establishments);
• Home health (if working with elderly, disabled, ill, or otherwise high-risk individuals)
• Nursing homes; and
• Community living facilities; and
• Retail establishments that sell groceries (added March 26).

How much paid sick leave must be provided? Employers are required to provide up to four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms who are being tested for COVID-19. If the employee tests negative, the leave ends. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shawna Ruetz, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Ruetz may be contacted at Shawna.Ruetz@lewisbrisbois.com

---