Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

September 10, 2014 — Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract. In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC Announces Leadership Changes and New Vision for Growth

January 21, 2025 — David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC (“HHMR”) is excited to announce several significant developments as the firm transitions into an exciting new chapter of growth and innovation. Sheri Roswell, one of the firm’s founding members, is stepping out of ownership to serve as “Of Counsel,” continuing her vital work with clients and strengthening relationships that have been the cornerstone of HHMR’s success. Her tireless contributions since the firm’s inception have helped establish HHMR as a leader in Colorado’s construction law landscape. “Sheri has been a pillar of HHMR since day one. Her commitment to our clients and her unwavering dedication to the firm’s success have left an indelible mark. We are excited for her to continue contributing her expertise and leadership in this new capacity,” said David McLain at the firm’s recent holiday celebration. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Harborside Condo Construction Defect Settlement Moves Forward

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Harborside Condominium Owners Association in Bremerton, Washington, “has an agreement to pursue $2.8 million in settlement costs for construction defects,” according to the Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal. Back in March of 2013, the association “filed a list of defects in its lawsuit against Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority [Housing Kitsap]” including water issues, drywall and foundation cracks, uneven cabinets, leaking showers and pipes, as well as other issues. Housing Kitsap agreed that the association “has the right to pursue a settlement of $2.8 million from the authority’s contractors and insurance companies.” Marlyn Hawkins, the association’s attorney, stated that they have already received a payment for $840,000 from the insurance company “and will be negotiating or filing suit for the rest of the $2.8 million.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity

July 26, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Construction contracts oftentimes and should contain conditions precedent to payment. Conditions precedent apply to both progress payments and final payment. The conditions precedent operate such that payment is NOT due until the conditions are satisfied. The satisfaction of the conditions precedent triggers the payor’s obligation to pay. If a dispute arises due to the payee’s noncompliance with conditions precedent to payment, the noncompliance should be asserted with particularity in the answer and affirmative defenses. For example, if a subcontractor was required to provide lien waivers and releases as a condition precedent to payment, then this should be asserted with particularity as an affirmative defense. If the contractor’s receipt of payment from the owner was a condition precedent to payment to the subcontractor (pay-when-paid), then this should be asserted with particularity as an affirmative defense. Any noncompliance with a condition precedent should be identified as an affirmative defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Big Builder, Meritage entered Atlanta through its acquisition of Legendary Communities for $130 million, “completing a two-year quest.” “Probably for about two years, we’ve been looking in the market, talking to builders, and studying the geography, and meeting different people to learn who the players are and learn about the area,” Meritage Homes chairman and CEO Steven J. Hilton told Big Builder. This acquisition makes Meritage Homes “the number one builder in the Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, S.C. market, owning more than 16 percent of the 2013 market share with 266 closings, according to Metrostudy data. It also owns almost seven percent of the market share in nearby Spartanburg, S.C. with 44 closings.” Legendary fits “in very nicely with what we do at Meritage,” Hilton said to Big Builder. “We’re a strong first and second move up builder, as are they at Legendary. It’s a very complementary fit between the two companies.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

You’re Only as Good as Those with Whom You Contract

April 17, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have been beating the drum of the need to have a solid construction contract as the basis for your construction project and contractor/subcontractor/supplier relationships. I have also emphasized that communication early and often is one of the best ways to assure a smooth project. However, the sad truth is that even with the best contract drafted with the assistance of an experienced construction attorney, if the other party to the contract simply decides not to perform, whether that is through unjustified non-payment or simple refusal to complete a scope of work without reason, it will be an expensive proposition to force compliance or be compensated for the monetary damage caused by such actions. It is this often unmentioned truth relating to any contract, including those that construction professionals in Virginia deal with on a daily basis, that makes having a good knowledge of those with whom you plan to contract is key to a successful (read profitable) construction project. Of course be sure that any contractor or subcontractor you contract with has the basics of propoer insurance, the right experience and of course a contractor’s license with the proper specialty or specialties. These basics will get you most of the way to assuring that those that contract with you at least are responsible in business. Another key component, if you can find this information out, is the financial wherwithall of the other party. For a General Contractor, this means both sides of the equation: Owner and Subcontractors. For a Subcontractor, the key is the Contractor, but any other information you can get on the Owner is helpful (though this can be difficult) particularly in the face of a “pay if paid” clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

August 10, 2021 — Karen C. Bennett - Lewis Brisbois
Last week, in North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals suggested that Congress did not intend for the states, or tribes, to take final action on Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 applications within a year of filing. The opinion conflicts with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2020 final rule that sought to limit state and tribal certifying authorities’ ability to delay federal projects through various tolling schemes. 85 Fed. Reg. 42210 (Jul. 13, 2020). EPA’s rule, codified in existing regulations, states that the CWA imposes a strict one-year deadline for certification decisions, otherwise certification is waived. However, the Fourth Circuit’s view suggests that this waiver is not triggered in cases where the certifying authority has acted on the application, even if it takes longer than a year to make a final certification decision. The court ultimately decided the case on other grounds, leaving a resolution on the statutory interpretation question for another day. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com

Reinsurer Must Reimburse Health Care Organization for Settlement Costs

June 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment issued to reinsurer Continental Casualty Company (CNA) and determined it must reimburse the insured for settlement costs under the E & O policy. Wellpoint, Inc., et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al., 2015 Ind. LEXIS 316 (Ind. April 22, 2015). Anthem, Inc. was a large managed health care organization. Anthem was its own primary and excess insurer for E&O liability. It had numerous excess reinsurers. Beginning in 1998, anthem was confronted by various lawsuits alleging it and other managed care organizations failed to pay claims in a full and timely manner, thereby breaching state and federal statutes. The various lawsuits alleged substantially the same wrongful conduct, namely that after promising to pay doctors in a timely manner for their services, Anthem sought to improperly deny, delay and diminish payments due. The cases were consolidated into a federal multi-district litigation proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. Claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of state prompt pay statutes were dismissed or dropped. Anthem then settled the underlying litigation in July 2005 without admitting and instead denying any wrongdoing or liability. The settlement called for both cash payments and implementation of specific business practices consistent with requested injunctive relief. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES