Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

How Do You Get to the Five Year Mark? Some Practical Advice

August 26, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we would like to welcome back (again) Sean Lintow Sr. of SLS Construction & Building Solutions . Sean has over 20 years working directly in the trenches in the construction arena. Since moving to Illinois, the focus of his business has shifted to helping builders, trade professionals& even code officials not only understand and meet the latest energy codes but how to improve their methods to accomplish it better and more affordably. Currently he is RESNET Rater, AEE CEA (Certified Energy Auditor), ENERGY STAR partner & verifier, EPA Indoor airPLUS verifier, Level 2 Infrared Thermographer, Volunteer Energy Rater for Habitat for Humanity, and Builders Challenge Partner & Verifier. You may also want to check out his great resources on The HTRC (Homeowners & Trades Resource Center). I would like to thank Chris for inviting me back for my 6th musing on this great site. I would also like to give him a Belated Happy Birthday for reaching 5 years since going solo. Reaching five years is a big milestone for many businesses as most new ventures (I think it is 85% or maybe even 90%) fail during that time. Therefore, a big congrats to you Chris & here is to another five plus years. For the most part the blame game for failure comes down to; wrong product offerings (market to saturated, not interested in, etc…), their ability to market, or poor business skills (not charging enough, realizing what they are spending, etc…) as the main point of failures. There is another group though that never seems to get much press and that is the ones that seemingly are blindsided by the dreaded “ignorance of the law” is no excuse… Not only does this effect many large companies but also many solo operations which is where I do want to focus today, especially on 4 “lesser” known issues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Quick Note: Charting Your Contractual Rights With Respect To The Coronavirus

April 06, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
As more and more information is being learned, and more and more industries are being impacted, it is likely that the construction industry will follow suit. And, while impacts with the global supply chain may not yet be realized, impacts could begin with labor supply and, frankly, employers’ safety protocols dealing with the coronavirus. One suggestion that should be implemented is a detailed chart, similar to the below, where you are charting rights and obligations under your contracts dealing with force majeure, notice, and project suspensions. This is step one to make sure you are making prudent decisions, preserving rights, and making sure contractual obligations are being met. Be proactive, not reactive. 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

Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

May 06, 2019 — Brian Bassett - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 W. Huron Condo. Assoc’n, 2019 IL App (1st) 180743, the Illinois Court of Appeals held that a claim against a subcontractor for damage caused to property outside the scope of its work satisfied the insuring agreement of a CGL policy. The condominium association for the building located at 950 West Huron Street in Chicago, Illinois (“the Association”), sued its general contractor and construction manager Belgravia Group, Ltd., and Belgravia Construction Corporation (collectively “Belgravia”). The Association sought to recover for alleged defects from Belgravia’s unworkmanlike construction of the building that permitted water to permeate and cause damage. In the Association’s complaint, it alleged that in June 2002, after the Association took possession of the building but prior to the completion of construction, Belgravia became aware of numerous conditions and defects, including extensive water infiltration of the building. After discussing the issues with Belgravia, the Association claimed that Belgravia retained contractors to provide cosmetic fixes. However, this did not address the problems and defects. The Association alleged that it spent a substantial amount of money to identify and correct the damage and that it would incur additional costs for future repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Bassett may be contacted at bbassett@tlsslaw.com

Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

April 04, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Girl, Inc., 673 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. 2004), the insured general contractor was hired by the owner to design and build a warehouse on the owner s property. The general contractor hired a soil engineer to do a soil analysis and make site preparation recommendations. The soil engineer determined that the soil conditions were poor and recommended a compression process which the general contractor followed. After the warehouse was completed and the owner took possession, excessive soil settlement caused the foundation to sink which in turn caused structural damage to the warehouse. The warehouse had to be torn down.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

November 13, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The court rejected the insurer's arguments that the business risk exclusions barred coverage for a contractor. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin v. Five Star Bldg. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134122 (D. Mass. Sept. 19, 2013). Five Star was hired by the University of Massachusetts to upgrade the ventilation (HVAC) system on a portion of a building. The large majority of the work involved work in the interior of the building, but a small portion required installation of duct work and supports on top of the roof of the complex. Five Star also penetrated the roof at numerous locations to install supports for duct work and other rooftop structures for the ventilation system. Other subcontractors then secured supports to the concrete roof deck and installed permanent patches where Five Star had penetrated the roofing system. On same days, Five Star could not accomplish the process in a single day after penetrating the roof. It would install temporary patches until the next day. This was the only work on the roof performed by Five Star. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied

April 08, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's claim for contingent business interruption ("CBI") coverage was denied in Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh Pa., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3096 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2014). Millenium processed titanium dioxide, a compound used for its white pigmentation, at its plant in Western Australia. Millennium purchased natural gas to process the titanium dioxide from Alinta Sales Pty Ltd., a natural gas supplier. Alinta purchased gas from Apache Corporation. Once Apache processed the natural gas, it was injected into a pipeline. The gas from Apache's facility was commingled with that obtained from other producers, resulting in a mix of gas in a single pipeline. Alinta had sole ownership of the gas once it entered the pipeline. Under Alinta's contract with Millennium, title to the gas passed to Millenium only at the time of delivery, i.e., when the gas left the pipeline and was delivered to Millennium's facility through a separate delivery line. Millennium had no contract or business relationship with Apache, and the contract it had with Alinta made no reference to Apache. An explosion occurred at Apache's facility causing its natural gas production to cease. As a result, Millennium's gas supply was curtailed, and it was force to shut down its operations for a number of months. 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

An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

December 20, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to insurance contracts, there is a rule of law that states, “where interpretation is required by ambiguity in insurance contracts[,] the insured will be favored.” Pride Clean Restoration, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated another way: ambiguities in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer. With this rule of law in mind, insureds oftentimes try to argue ambiguity even when there is not one. This was the situation in Pride Clean Construction. In this case, the property insurance policy contained a mold exclusion that stated the policy did NOT insure for “a. loss caused by mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism of any type, nature, or description including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health; or b. the cost or expense of monitoring, testing, removal, encapsulation, abatement, treatment or handling of mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism as referred to in a) above.” Not only did the policy not insure for loss caused by mold, it went further to state it was NOT insuring for any mold testing or abatement. 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

Employees in Construction Industry Entitled to Compensation for Time Spent Complying with Employer-Mandated Security Protocols

August 19, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Wage and hour laws dictating how employers must compensate their employees for time worked can, given the innumerable ways that employees perform their jobs, raise a number of questions. The next case, Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, 15 Cal.5th 908 (2024) – which I won’t spend a lot of time discussing since I think it applies in somewhat limited situations – addresses whether employees are entitled to be paid while waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite. The Huerta Case The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested that the California Supreme Court address three questions related to whether employees should be compensated under California wage and hour laws for time spent waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite:

Whether employees should be paid for time spent waiting in a personal vehicle to be scanned in and out of a worksite;
Whether employees should be paid for time spent traveling in a personal vehicle from a security gate to employee parking lots; and
Whether employees should be paid during meal periods if they are not permitted to leave a worksite.

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES