Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

October 25, 2021 — Dirk D. Haire, Joseph L. Cohen & Jane Han - ConsensusDocs
Federal construction contracts law generally recognizes four basic methods for pricing damages: (1) Actual Cost Method (ACM); (2) Total Cost Method (TCM); (3) Modified Total Cost Method (MTCM); and (4) Jury Verdict Recovery Method (JVRM). In practice, it is difficult to obtain significant recoveries on TCM and JVRM claims, and only marginally easier on MTCM claims. That is because the courts and boards that hear federal government contracts cases have developed a clear preference for the ACM. Despite this preference, many contractors do not have systems in place to maximize their opportunity to recover damages under the ACM. This article introduces various strategies for tracking and allocating damages during project performance in a manner that will support an ACM analysis if a federal construction claim is litigated. Background: Four Basic Methods for Pricing Damages The four methods for pricing damages are described, below: 1. Actual Cost Method The actual cost method claims damages based on records of “actual costs” that were documented during the performance of the contract. All additional costs must be separately recorded from the costs incurred in the normal course of contract performance. Because contractors provide the court or board with documented underlying expenses under the actual cost method, courts and boards prefer this method. However, the actual cost method may not always be feasible where a contractor is confronted with drastic changes early and often in a project. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk D. Haire, Fox Rothschild LLP, Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild LLP and Jane Han, Fox Rothschild LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@foxrothschild.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jlcohen@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In the UK, be careful what you tell your insurer; the Court of Appeal has upheld the legality of basis clauses. As Paul Lewis and Janetta Gibbs of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP explain, “a basis clause is a provision set out in the proposal form or in the insurance contract itself, to the effect that all or any of the answers to the questions in the proposal shall form the basis of the contract of insurance.” The catch, as they point out, is that “should any of those answers — whether material to the risk or not — prove to be untrue, the insurer may repudiate the policy and treat itself as never having been on risk.” There is a move in the UK to abolish the use of basis clauses in business insurance, but currently they are still legal. This came up in a construction defect case covering latent defects in a public housing project. The contract between the owner, Genesis Housing Association Limited, and the contractor, Time and Tide (Bedford) Ltd, required TT Bedford to indemnify Genesis if it became insolvent. In the contract with the insurer, representatives of Bedford and Genesis referred to the contractor as “TT Construction.” While the courts concluded that Bedford and Genesis were not guilty of misrepresentation or intent to defraud, they did note that neither party thought the firm’s name was “TT Construction.” Therefore, over the failure to name the builder correctly, the court found that the insurance contract was invalid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Indemnity Clauses That Conflict with Oregon Indemnity Statute Can Remain Partially Valid and Enforceable

November 30, 2016 — Masaki James Yamada – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
When the indemnity provision of a contract conflicts with ORS 30.140, it is voided to the extent that it conflicts with the statute, but no more. Such provisions can remain partially valid and enforceable.[i] In Montara Owner Assn., the owner brought claims against the contractor for construction defects and damage relating to the construction of 35 townhouses. Contractor then brought third-party claims against more than 20 subcontractors for breach of contract and indemnity. Before trial, contractor settled with all but one subcontractor. The subcontract contained an indemnity provision requiring subcontractor to indemnify contractor for losses arising out of subcontractor’s work, including losses caused in part by contractor’s own negligence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Masaki James Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

A Top U.S. Seller of Carbon Offsets Starts Investigating Its Own Projects

April 19, 2021 — Ben Elgin - Bloomberg
Following concerns that it is facilitating the sale of meaningless carbon credits to corporate clients, the Nature Conservancy says it’s conducting an internal review of its portfolio of carbon-offset projects. The nonprofit owns or has helped develop more than 20 such projects on forested lands mostly in the U.S., which generate credits that are purchased by such companies as JPMorgan Chase & Co., BlackRock Inc., and Walt Disney Co., which use them to claim large reductions in their own publicly reported emissions. The self-examination follows a Bloomberg Green investigation last year that found the world’s largest environmental group taking credit for preserving trees in no danger of destruction. The internal review is a sign that it’s at least questioning some practices that have become widespread in the environmental world, and could carry implications for the broader market for carbon credits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Elgin, Bloomberg

Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

August 08, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In yet another of the collapse cases being litigated in state and federal courts in Connecticut, the federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss. Rosenberger v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95345 (D. Conn. June 6, 2018). The insureds had policies with Amica since 1989. Policies before December 18, 2006, covered collapse caused by hidden decay or other specified causes. "Collapse" was not defined by the policy. These policies did not include any provisions explicitly excluding coverage for a chemical reaction. The post-2006 policies held by the insureds covered collapse, but under a significantly modified definition. The newer policy language stated that "collapse applies only to an abrupt collapse." Further, collapse was defined as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building with the result that the building or part of the building cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." 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

Construction Venture Sues LAX for Nonpayment

February 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Construction joint venture Walsh/Austin filed suit against the Los Angeles International Airport, claiming that “the airport failed to properly pay more than $2.4 million to an electrical subcontractor,” according to The Daily Breeze. Furthermore, SASCO, the electrical firm, alleged that they were “given inaccurate design documents that made it impossible for the company to carry out the work at the agreed-upon rate.” The complaint, as reported by The Daily Breeze, cited “other lawsuits brought by an Orange County plastering firm and a Buena Park door company” and suggested that “eventually, all the litigation tied to nonpayment at LAX will end up in the same courtroom.” Nancy Castles, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles World Airports, told The Daily Breeze that “the agency does not comment on pending litigation.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

January 17, 2022 — Chris Dolmetsch - Bloomberg
The developers of a Manhattan skyscraper that has become one of New York City’s toniest residences said the condo board is trying to squeeze money out of them with a lawsuit that claims bogus design flaws. The board is seeking $250 million from builders of the 1,396-foot residential tower at 432 Park Avenue that opened in 2015 on the so-called Billionaire’s Row. Their suit alleges the company that developers CIM Group and Macklowe Properties formed to build the structure failed to take into account its unusual height, leading to flooding, noise, vibrations and elevators that are prone to malfunctions. In a response to the suit filed Wednesday, the company called the building “a treasure” and the suit was “ill-advised.” While the structure needed to be “fine-tuned” when residents started to move in, the board stopped the builders from accessing the facilities and finishing the job “while manufacturing an ever-increasing list of demands,” most of which were not required, according to court filings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg

Narberth Mayor Urges Dubious Legal Action

June 15, 2017 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
When I left Philadelphia, I thought I had largely left NIMBY zoning disputes behind. However, I quickly learned that the Main Line NIMBY is simply a tiger of a different stripe (and better financed and represented than their Philadelphia brethren). One dispute that recently caught my attention concerns the proposed demolition of a 120 year old church in Narberth. A developer wishing to demolish a church and develop apartments and drawing the ire of certain neighbors is something that is routine in Point Breeze or Fishtown. However, apparently the same is true on the Main Line. At issue in the case, is a restriction contained in a 1891 deed that apparently states that only a church can be built on the property. (The article discussing the case does not quote the precise language of the purported restriction.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES