FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

July 20, 2020 — Kelly Alhadeff-Black & Alexander N. Knaub - Lewis Brisbois
In a recent ruling, California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal clarified the need for supplemental environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose (6th Dist., May 18, 2020). Specifically, the court held that seeking additional discretionary approvals, such as regulatory permits, does not constitute a “new discretionary approval for the project” under the California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15162 (the CEQA Guidelines). In 2014, the City of San Jose approved a project that included the demolition and replacement of a wooden railroad bridge known as the Willow Glen Trestle (the Project). CEQA review for the Project was conducted via mitigated negative declaration (MND). The Project was quickly challenged by a local group called Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle, alleging that the City should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report based on the allegation that the Willow Glen Trestle constituted an historic resource for CEQA purposes. Ultimately, the City prevailed in that litigation (See Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose, et al. (6th Dist., 2016), which remanded the case to the trial court for further review consistent with the Court of Appeal’s verdict) with the court eventually finding that the City correctly analyzed and answered the question of historic resource classification and significance in reference to the Willow Glen Trestle. Reprinted courtesy of Kelly Alhadeff-Black, Lewis Brisbois and Alexander N. Knaub, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Alhadeff-Black may be contacted at Kelly.Black@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Knaub may be contacted at Alexander.Knaub@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

December 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Labor Department has noted that half the states and the District of Columbia saw increases in construction employment during the month of October. During the same month, twenty-three states lost construction jobs.

The biggest gains were in North Dakota, Oklahoma, DC, Texas, and California. The biggest losses were in Georgia, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Florida. There was no change for Alabama.

The chief executive officer of the Association of General Contractors of America, Stephen E. Sandherr, called for more infrastructure development. “Allowing water, transportation and energy networks to deteriorate will hurt construction employment and force taxpayers to spend more later, to fix broken infrastructure.”

Read the full story…

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

---

A General Contractors Guide to Bond Thresholds by State

June 13, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Author: Eric Weisbrot is the Chief Marketing Officer of JW Surety Bonds. With years of experience in the surety industry under several different roles within the company, he is also a contributing author to the surety bond blog. For general contractors in construction, there are many facets of business management that must be considered and then accomplished over time. Operating a successful general contractor business regardless of size or niche requires an understanding of bookkeeping, personnel management, regulatory compliance, as well as revenue potential for each project. However, one often overlooked aspect of being a general contractor – having the appropriate contractor license and minimum surety bond – correlates to each of these required fragments of the business from the start. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage

March 09, 2020 — Sally Kim & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
The Washington courts have historically found that the purpose of a certificate of insurance is to advise others as to the existence of insurance, but that a certificate is not the equivalent of an insurance policy. However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently held that, under certain circumstances, an insurer may be bound by the representations that its insurance agent makes in a certificate of insurance as to the additional insured (“AI”) status of a third party. Specifically, in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court found that where an insurance agent had erroneously indicated in a certificate of insurance that an entity was an AI under a liability policy, that entity would be considered as an AI based upon the agent’s apparent authority, despite boilerplate disclaimer language contained in the certificate. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, Slip. Op. No. 96500-5, 2019 WL 5076647 (Wash. Oct. 10, 2019). In this case, Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) issued a liability policy to a contractor who had been retained by T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”) to construct a cell tower. The policy conferred AI status to a third party if the insured-contractor had agreed in a written contract to add the third party as an AI to the policy. Under the terms of the subject construction contract, the contractor was required to name T-Mobile NE as an AI under the policy. T-Mobile NE was therefore properly considered as an AI because the contractor was required to provide AI coverage to T-Mobile NE under the terms of their contract. However, over the course of approximately seven years, Selective’s own insurance agent issued a series of certificates of insurance that erroneously identified a different company, “T-Mobile USA”, as an AI under the policy. This was in error because there was no contractual requirement that T-Mobile USA be added as an AI. Nonetheless, the certificates stated that T-Mobile USA was an AI, and they were signed by the agent as Selective’s “authorized representative.” Reprinted courtesy of Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

August 04, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Continental Western Insurance Company v. Shay Construction Inc., Judge Walker Miller has granted a summary judgment against Shay Construction and their co-defendant, Milender White Construction Company.



Shay was the framing subcontractor for Milender White on what the court described as “a major construction project in Grand County, Colorado.” Two of Shay’s subcontractors, Wood Source Inc. and Chase Lumber Company furnished materials, labor, and equipment to Shay. They subsequently sued for nonpayment and sought to enforce mechanic’s liens, naming both Shay and Milender as defendants. Milender White alleged that Shay had “breached its obligation under its subcontracts with Milender White.”



Shay’s insurance provider, Continental Western, stated that its coverage did not include “the dispute between Shay, its subcontractors, particularly the cross claims asserted by Milender White.” Shay then sued Continental Western, alleging breach of contract and statutory bad faith.



The court, however, has found with Continental Western and has granted them a summary judgment. They found “no genuine issue as to any material fact.” The judge did not side with Continental Western on their interpretation of the phrase “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages.” The court found that the Colorado courts have not limited this to tort actions only. However, as Milender’s cross claim included claims of faulty workmanship on the part of Shay, Judge Miller found for Continental.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

January 04, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Originally Published by CDJ on January 5, 2017 A performance bond is a valuable tool designed to guarantee the performance of the principal of the contract made part of the bond. But, it is only a valuable tool if the obligee (entity the bond is designed to benefit) understands that it needs to properly trigger the performance bond if it is looking to the bond (surety) to remedy and pay for a contractual default. If the performance bond is not properly triggered and a suit is brought upon the bond then the obligee could be the one materially breaching the terms of the bond. This means the obligee has no recourse under the performance bond. This is a huge downside when the obligee wanted the security of the performance bond, and reimbursed the bond principal for the premium of the bond, in order to address and remediate a default under the underlying contract. A recent example of this downside can be found in the Southern District of Florida’s decision in Arch Ins. Co. v. John Moriarty & Associates of Florida, Inc., 2016 WL 7324144 (S.D.Fla. 2016). Here, a general contractor sued a subcontractor’s performance bond surety for an approximate $1M cost overrun associated with the performance of the subcontractor’s subcontract (the contract made part of the subcontractor’s performance bond). The surety moved for summary judgment arguing that the general contractor failed to property trigger the performance bond and, therefore, materially breached the bond. The trial court granted the summary judgment in favor of the performance bond surety. Why? 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

---

A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

November 30, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
People who live in glass houses should have insurance (in addition to not throwing stones). So too should your construction project. The risks inherent on a construction project are many and varied, ranging from property damage to personal injury to pollution remediation costs, and wise contractors and project owners know that one of the best ways to mitigate these risks is through insurance. So, here’s a primer on what you need to know about insurance on construction projects. Commercial General Liability Insurance (CGL) What it Covers:

• Property damage.
• Bodily injury.
• Personal and advertising injury (e.g., libel and slander).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

January 15, 2019 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
On December 9, 2018, United States v. Spearin, [1] a landmark construction law case, will be 100 years old. The Spearin “doctrine”[2] provides that the owner impliedly warrants the information, plans and specifications which an owner provides to a general contractor. The contractor will not be liable to the owner for loss or damage which results from insufficiencies or defects in such information, plans and specifications. Some construction lawyers questioned whether the Spearin doctrine was still viable in Washington after the Washington Court of Appeals decided the recent case of King County v. Vinci Constr. Grand Projets.[3] Some concerned contractor industry groups even considered a “statutory fix” in the wake of the Court of Appeals Vinci decision. It is our opinion that the facts in the Vinci case are distinguishable and the Spearin doctrine is alive and thriving in Washington. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

---