Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud

August 28, 2018 — Tiffany Couch - Construction Executive
With construction ramping up in many markets, construction firms plan to hire more workers, indicating the industry's continued optimism about a healthy economy. It's news that is both exciting and perhaps a little daunting: hiring competent, qualified tradespeople is challenging under any conditions. No one wants to hire a poor employee—or worse, someone who turns out to be a thief. While no industry is immune to occupational fraud, the construction industry is one of the harder hit. The average construction fraud scheme costs business owners $227,000 before it is detected. Worse, the fraudster is very often someone the employer implicitly trusts, making it even harder to believe the company has been the victim of insider theft. Fraud can hurt a business's reputation, cost thousands and betray trust. It may seem uncontrollable and unforeseeable unless employers know how to detect and deter fraudulent behavior. Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Couch, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Couch may be contacted at tcouch@acuityforensics.com

New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors

September 08, 2016 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
The lack of insurance coverage for a contractor’s faulty workmanship is the bane of both homeowners looking to recover damage for defective work and contractors seeking to defend against such claims. In many states, like Pennsylvania, courts hold that faulty workmanship is not an “occurrence” that is covered by a standard commercial general liability insurance policy. In other words, courts hold that CGL policies cover damage to other property not part of the construction project itself. This is problematic for both the homeowner and the insured. For the homeowner, the lack of a policy providing indemnification sometimes means the homeowner is left trying to collect against a defendant, who is otherwise but has little to no assets against which to collect a judgment. For the contractor, the lack of a policy providing coverage means that assets are at risk and it could be forced to spend significant sums in attorneys fees defending the case. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Nevada Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson told the Las Vegas Review Journal that he was confident that his bill to reform construction defect legislation in Nevada would not meet the same fate as the bill he introduced in 2009, which made it through the Senate only to die in the Assembly. Senate Bill 161 would end the guarantee on legal fees for lawyers bringing construction defect suits. Further, the bill limits construction defects to those that include “an unreasonable risk of injury to a person or property.” According to the article, construction defect claims in Nevada are 38 times above the national average. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims

August 26, 2024 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
In the case of Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners (2024 COA 78), the Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed a complex contract dispute related to the design and construction of a transit rail line. The project, commissioned by the Regional Transportation District (“RTD”), involved a collaboration between Regional Rail Partners and Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company (“Wadsworth”) to build the North Metro Rail Line between Denver Union Station and Thornton. Key Facts:

Contracts and Payments: Regional Rail Partners contracted with Wadsworth to perform specific construction tasks with a total contract value of $60,210,783. By the time of the trial, Regional Rail had paid almost $58 million of this amount.
Disputes and Delays: The project faced numerous delays and disputes, leading to Wadsworth claiming significant financial damages attributed to these disruptions. In April 2018, Wadsworth’s expert estimated that Regional Rail owed them $12,408,496.60.

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

Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

December 22, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Every now and then I come across an opinion that addresses good-to-know legal issues as a corollary of strategic litigation decisions that are questionable and/or creative. An opinion out of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Rock Roofing, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2019 WL 4418918 (D. New Mexico 2019), is such an opinion. In Rock Roofing, an owner hired a contractor to construct apartments. The contractor furnished a payment bond. The contractor, in the performance of its work, hired a roofing subcontractor. A dispute arose under the subcontract and the roofer recorded a construction lien against the project. The contractor, per New Mexico law, obtained a bond to release the roofer’s construction lien from the project (real property). The roofer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the payment bond surety claiming it is entitled to: (1) collect on the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond (?!?) and (2) foreclose its construction lien against the lien release bond furnished per New Mexico law. Count I – Miller Act Payment Bond Claiming the payment bond issued by the contractor is a Miller Act payment bond is a head scratcher. This claim was dismissed with prejudice upon the surety’s motion to dismiss. This was an easy call. 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

London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

November 05, 2014 — Neil Callanan - Bloomberg
Sellar Property Group, developer of the Shard in London, won local government approval to build a 26-story residential tower close to the skyscraper on the south bank of the River Thames. The council for the Southwark borough voted in favor of the 148-apartment project, which also includes a 16-story tower, at a meeting yesterday, Sellar spokesman Baron Phillips said by e-mail. The project, like the Shard, will be developed in a partnership with the state of Qatar. Developers plan to construct more than 25,000 luxury properties in London worth more than 60 billion pounds ($96 billion) over the next decade, EC Harris said in an Oct. 7 report. The homes approved yesterday at the Fielden House site are expected to sell for about 800,000 pounds each, according to a filing by the borough. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Neil Callanan, Bloomberg
Mr. Callanan may be contacted at ncallanan@bloomberg.net

Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

February 02, 2017 — Jack Sidders - Bloomberg
Barratt Developments Plc suspended at least three more employees within its London business as part of an ongoing probe into potential misconduct in the awarding of contracts, according to two people familiar with the decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jack Sidders, Bloomberg
Mr. Sidders may be followed on Twitter @jacksidders

Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

March 30, 2016 — Eric J. Rollins, Esq. – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
It is common in California for the owners of a project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work as it is completed, but withhold a certain percentage as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. Contractors almost always pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors. Unsurprisingly, disputes can arise regarding when the withheld retentions must be paid. Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after receiving all or part of a retention payment. However, an exception exists -- a direct contractor may withhold from the retention paid to a subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount, whenever a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor.” (See Cal. Civ. Code, § 8814, subd. (c).) The problem with the statute is that it offers no help in defining a “good faith dispute,” and the California courts have historically not provided much guidance either. Can a “good faith dispute” be any dispute between the contracting parties, e.g., a dispute regarding change orders, mismanagement, etc.? Or must the dispute relate specifically to the retention? Unfortunately for California litigants, the answer may depend on the appellate district in which the parties find themselves. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric J. Rollins, Esq., Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Mr. Rollins may be contacted at eric.rollins@ndlf.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES