Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision

October 21, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
A new blog post from Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton discusses two recent decisions limiting the holding of Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 405 A.2d 788 (N.J. 1979), a New Jersey case that has generated decades of commentary and debate, in my own writing as well as that of many others (at least 1880 citations, according to the blog). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net

Milwaukee's 25-Story Ascent Stacks Up as Tall Timber Role Model

January 25, 2021 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
In January 2019, Preston Cole left his post as Commissioner of the Milwaukee Dept. of Neighborhood Services and became Secretary of Wisconsin’s Dept. of Natural Resources. It was a step up for the 25-year veteran of public service—a forester by profession—who as the city’s top building official had reformed DNS by fostering a developer-friendly environment. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

June 29, 2017 — Ceslie Blass - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
While we avoid using this blog as a platform for self-promotion, we recently received share-worthy distinctions, which both flatter and humble us. We invite you, our loyal readers, to celebrate in our success, which in great measure is due to you. John P. Ahlers, one of the firm's founding partners, was ranked third overall across all practicing industries in Washington 2017 Super Lawyers and founding partner Paul R. Cressman, Jr. was ranked in the Top 100. The following other firm members were also recognized as Super Lawyers: Founding partner Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen (Partner), Brett M. Hill (Partner), and Lawrence Glosser (Partner). In addition, Ryan W. Sternoff (Partner), James R. Lynch (Partner), Tymon Berger (Associate), and Lindsay (Taft) Watkins (Associate) were selected as Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Over half of the firm's lawyers received Super Lawyers distinction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ceslie Blass, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC

When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

August 13, 2019 — Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocs
Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider

June 21, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to drafting and negotiating a subcontract, there are provisions that should be important to you from a risk assessment standpoint. From the subcontractor’s standpoint, below are questions you should ask, or issues you should consider, as you go through the subcontract. These are the same questions and issues that are also important to a contractor as the contractor will want to ensure these issues are included in the subcontract. By asking yourself these questions, you can check to see how the subcontract addresses these issues, and how the risk should be negotiated. Hopefully, you are working with counsel to make sure you understand what risk you are assuming and those provisions you want to try to push back on. Asking yourself these questions, or considering these questions, will help you go through the subcontract with a purpose based on the risk profile of the project and certain risk you don’t want to assume.

Prime Contract –> Does the subcontract incorporate the prime contract? Make sure to request the prime contract since the subcontract will identify the prime contract as part of the Subcontract Documents and will require you to assume towards the contractor the same obligations the contractor is required to assume towards the owner.
Scope of Work –> What is the scope of work? Is it clear. Make sure the scope is clear and you understand the scope.

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

2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

July 09, 2019 — Melinda S. Gentile & Cadian T. Baker - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The 2019 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session. Below is a summary of those construction-related bills set to become law in 2019. Bills Becoming Law in 2019 HB 1247: Relating to Construction Bonds. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. Once the Governor has approved the bill it becomes effective as of October 1, 2019. This bill addresses how to properly perfect a claim against a contractor’s payment bond. (1) The Notice of Nonpayment that must be served on the contractor and the surety, must be made under oath and include the following provisions: The nature of the labor or services performed or to be performed; The materials furnished or to be furnished; The amount paid on the account; and if known, the amount owed and the amount to become due. A Notice of Nonpayment that includes the sums for retainage must specify the portion of the amount claimed for retainage. (2) A subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier (claimant) who files a fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment loses their rights under the bond. The filing of a fraudulent notice is a complete defense to claimant’s claim against the bond. A notice is fraudulent if the claimant willfully exaggerated the amount due, willfully included a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished or prepared the notice with willful and gross negligence, which resulted in willful exaggeration. However, a minor mistake in the notice, or a good faith dispute as to the amount due, is not considered fraudulent. Please note that this provision mirrors the existing statute relative to a fraudulent lien. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Gentile may be contacted at mgentile@pecklaw.com

Duty to Defend Requires Payments Under Policy's Supplemental Payments Provision

February 16, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal determined there was no duty to indemnify and the insured had to reimburse the insurer's contribution to a settlement. Nevertheless, there was a duty to defend, meaning the insured did not have to reimburse amounts it was entitled to under the supplemental payments provision. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Constr., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1132 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2016). Moorefield was the general contractor for a shopping center project to be developed by DBO Development No. 28 (DBO). The project included the construction of a 30,055-square-foot building to by used as a Best Buy store. In January 2002, DBO entered a 15-year lease with Best Buy. 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

Fifth Circuit Requires Causal Distinction for Ensuing Loss Exception to Faulty Work Exclusion

August 29, 2022 — Avery J. Cantor & William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In Balfour Beatty v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals provided valuable insight on coverage available through ensuing loss exceptions to faulty work and design exclusions in builder’s risk insurance policies. In Balfour Beatty, the Court held that, in order to establish coverage through an ensuing loss exception, the ensuing loss must be causally distinct from the original excluded loss.1 Balfour Beatty, serving as general contractor for construction of a commercial office building in Houston, Texas, subcontracted with Milestone for steelwork on the project. As part of this work, Milestone welded a 2-inch metal plate to external tubing on the eighteenth floor of the building. While welding the plate in place, welding slag fell down the side of the building, damaging exterior glass windows on the floors below. Balfour Beatty and Milestone, along with the developer, sought coverage for the damage to the windows under their builder’s risk policy, issued by Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual denied coverage, claiming that the damage was excluded by the policy’s “Defects, Errors, and Omissions” exclusion. The insureds sued, arguing that the ensuing loss exception to this exclusion would carve back coverage because the damage to the windows constituted an “ensuing loss.” Reprinted courtesy of Avery J. Cantor, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Cantor may be contacted at ACantor@sdvlaw.com Mr. Bennett may be contacted at WBennett@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES