Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

May 20, 2019 — Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
It is one of those dreaded business situations that plagues the construction industry, especially in times of economic downturn—what to do when a lower-tier entity files a lien against a property then disappears. It has happened to countless owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and even some particularly unlucky sub-tier subcontractors and suppliers. Here is how it arises: a project is moving along, then performance or payment issues arise, and a company that is over extended or unwilling to continue work stops performance, walks off the job, and files a lien against the property for whatever amounts were allegedly unpaid. Often, the allegedly unpaid sums were legitimately withheld due to a good faith dispute over payment/performance, and it is not unusual for the defaulting entity to not be entitled to any of the sums claimed in the lien. Regardless, the lien stays on the property, and pressure is applied from the “upstream” entities to the party who contracted with the defaulting entity to “deal” with the lien. Oftentimes, a contract will require the parties to “deal” with a lien by obtaining a lien release bond (“release bond”). For those lucky enough to not have encountered this issue, a release bond is a nifty statutory device whereby a surety agrees to record a release bond for the full claimed amount of the lien, with the release bond substituting in for the liened property, effectively discharging the property from liability under the lien. In other words, the lien is released from the property and attaches to the release bond. If the lien claimant recovers on its lien, it is technically satisfied by the surety providing the release bond (or the party who agrees to indemnify and defend the release bond). In exchange for delivering the release bond, the surety demands yearly premiums be paid on the release bond amount Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

Banks Loosening U.S. Mortgage Standards: Chart of the Day

August 13, 2014 — Jody Shenn – Bloomberg
Perhaps more U.S. banks than at any time in two decades are making it easier to qualify for a mortgage. The CHART OF THE DAY shows the net share of banks telling the Federal Reserve that they’re tightening standards in the home-loan market. In the central bank’s July survey of senior loan officers released last week, the net percentage for prime mortgages was negative 18.3 percent, by far the most loosening since it started asking the question by loan-quality category in 2007. It was also greater than the highest net share of banks easing in “all” mortgages in the 1990s or 2000s. Still, lenders have a long way to go before they unwind the restrictions they imposed in the wake of the global financial crisis that risky home loans helped to create. The current trend is mainly about “small tweaks around the edges,” according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. mortgage-bond analysts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net

Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

October 25, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The California Supreme Court doesn’t often delve into construction-related issues, but this year we’ve got two cases, both related to the payment of prevailing wages on California public works projects. The first, Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1118 which we discussed in our last blog post, concerned whether mobilization work qualifies as a “public work” and in turn requires the payment of prevailing wages. On the same day that the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mendoza, it issued a decision in Busker v. Wabtec Corporation, et al. , Case No. S251135 (August 16, 2021). This is the equivalent of being struck by lightning twice. In Busker, the California Supreme Court considered whether on a public transportation project “field work” (e.g., building and outfitting radio towers on land adjacent to train tracks) and “onboard work” (e.g., installing electronic components on train cars and locomotives”) requires the payment of prevailing wage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

The Burden of Betterment

February 23, 2017 — Ryan M. Charlson, Esq. - Florida Construction Law News
The concept of betterment has long been used by defendants in cases involving defective design or construction to limit the damages awarded to a plaintiff.[1] The theory behind betterment is that: “if in [the] course of making repairs [an] owner adopts a more expensive design, recovery should be limited to what would have been the reasonable cost of repair according to original design.”[2] Betterment is often raised as an affirmative defense, requiring a defendant to prove that the plaintiff has received a good or service that is superior to that for which the plaintiff originally contracted. A recent South Florida case seems, at first blush, to suggest the burden of establishing the value of betterments may fall to the plaintiff, although a closer reading indicates the decision is likely to have limited applicability. In Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. The City of Miami Beach, the Third District Court of Appeal was asked to review the damages award to the City for construction defects associated with the redesign and improvement of a park.[3] The completed project contained landscaping deficiencies, along with other “minor defects” in the playground’s construction.[4] After a unilateral audit, and without providing the contractor its contractually required opportunity to cure the defects, the City “removed, redesigned, and replaced the playground in its entirety.”[5] It did so despite no recommendation by the City’s own expert to perform such work.[6] During the bench trial, the “only measure of damages provided by the City was the costs associated with the planning, permitting, and construction of a park that is fundamentally different from the one it contracted with [the contractor] to build.”[7] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Charlson may be contacted at ryan.charlson@csklegal.com

Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

October 02, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Neighbors of the Sky Hotel in Aspen, Colorado, filed suit against the owners “alleging that the construction project will impede access to their units and steal their airspace,” reported the Aspen Daily News Online. The problem, the plaintiff suit alleges, is that the Sky’s plan would close the “east-west alley,” which is also used by the condo complex: “Owners, renters and guests mainly use the alley, which is configured for one-way traffic entering on Durant Avenue and exiting at Original Street, to access their condos in the Chaumont, says the 12-page complaint filed by local attorney Jody Edwards.” The plaintiffs are demanding that the plan be voided or at least require the issues in the suit to be addressed. They are also seeking attorney and other costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Greenest U.S. Cities & States

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
ECOBUILDING Pulse discussed the results of the 2014 U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index, which “tracks clean tech progress by state, and in the 50 largest metro areas.” The top three states with the highest Clean Tech Index score were California, Massachusetts, and Oregon. Out of the top 10 cities, 5 were located in California. The top three cities with the highest score were San Francisco, San Jose, and San Diego. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

National Engineering and Public Works Roadshow Highlights Low Battery Seawall Restoration Project in Charleston

April 29, 2024 — Engineering and Public Works Roadshow
CHARLESTON, SC — On Thursday, the nationwide Engineering and Public Works Roadshow stopped at the Low Battery Seawall Restoration Project in Charleston. The event highlighted the role engineers and public works professionals play in infrastructure projects like the local seawall improvements that increase coastal resiliency along the historic urban shoreline. The event, which took place along the newly constructed battery wall section between King Street and Battery Place along Murray Boulevard, marked the latest stop of the Engineering and Public Works Roadshow – a joint effort by the American Council of Engineering Companies, the American Public Works Association, and the American Society of Civil Engineers to bring public attention to the essential role engineers and public works professionals play in making our modern world possible. The battery project underscores the importance of innovative engineering solutions in addressing the challenges of climate change and rising sea levels. Thursday's event was also a chance to spotlight the engineering, construction, and public officials involved in the project, whose work often goes unrecognized. About the Engineering and Public Works Roadshow: The Engineering and Public Works Roadshow is a series of nationwide events highlighting critical infrastructure projects and the skilled professionals who make them possible. It is an opportunity to learn about the importance of infrastructure investment, showcase the work of engineers and public works professionals, and celebrate these projects' positive impact on our communities. Learn more at www.infrastructureroadshow.org. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

February 28, 2022 — Jared De Jong, Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
For decades, an insurer’s duty to defend under Texas law was determined exclusively by reviewing the insurance contract and the allegations of the complaint under the “eight-corners rule.” All of this changed last week when, in a long-awaited decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the existence of coverage in certain limited situations. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., No. 21-0232, 2022 WL 413940 (Tex. Feb. 11, 2022). In Monroe, a drilling contractor was sued for damages arising out of the allegedly botched drilling of an irrigation well. The underlying lawsuit alleged that negligent drilling caused damage to surrounding farmland. However, the complaint did not allege when the damage occurred. The contractor’s insurers, BITCO General Insurance Corporation (“Bitco”) and Monroe Guarantee Insurance Company (“Monroe”) disputed whether Monroe owed a duty to defend. Although Bitco agreed to provide a defense, Monroe refused, arguing that the property damage happened before its policy period. Bitco sued Monroe for contribution. In the trial court, the insurers stipulated that a drill bit became stuck before Monroe’s policy incepted, a fact that would have supported Monroe’s “prior damage” defense. On summary judgment, though, the trial court ruled this stipulated fact could not be considered under Texas’ eight-corners rule. Monroe appealed, and the Fifth Circuit, which had previously endorsed an exception to the eight-corners rule under Northfield Insurance Co. v. Loving Home Care, Inc., 363 F.3d 523, 531 (5th Cir. 2004), certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court. Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears, Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES