Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
On his Best Practices Construction Law blog, Matthew Devries discussed how the “at its sole option…has the right to demand arbitration” can “be a good provision if you are the party who has that option.” For instance, Devries cites the case Archer Western Contractors, LLC v Holder Construction Company, where “the Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant a contractor’s motion to compel arbitration with a ‘sole option’ provision.” Devries stated that “it is important to review carefully the disputes clause in your construction contract to fully understand who has the right to demand arbitration and what rules will apply.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Washington State May Allow Common Negligence Claims against Construction Professionals

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lane Powell, a law firm with offices in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and London has issued a construction law update on a recent decision of the Washington Supreme Court. The case involved a development firm that sued its engineering firm. The developer had gained preliminary approval to develop two short plats, and after the approvals expired, sought the assistance of the engineering firm in regaining approval. Eventually, the developer lost the plats to foreclosure and sued the engineering firm. The Washington Supreme Court rejected most of the developer’s claims in the case, but sent the negligence claims back to the trial court. The Lane Powell construction law update notes that “the record didn’t adequately establish the scope of the professional obligations incorporated into the contract, the court refused to determine if any of the engineer’s duties to the plaintiffs arose independently of the contract.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

November 02, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In this summary of recent developments in environmental and regulatory law, venues are challenged, standing is upheld, statutory exemption is disputed and more. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Change Must Come from Within … Maryland? As the new term begins, the Court has agreed to review BP PLC v. Mayor and City Council of Maryland, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which held that a climate change damages case filed against many energy companies must be heard in the state courts of Maryland and not the federal courts. The petitioners argue that the federal office removal statute authorizes such removal, and the Fourth Circuit’s contrary decision conflicts with rulings from other circuit courts. THE FEDERAL COURTS Where Is the Fund in That? On September 25,2020, in U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin, et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the lower court should not have dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. House of Representatives challenging the Executive Branch’s transferal of appropriated funds to the Department of Defense to build a physical barrier along the southern border of the United State. The case is More than $8 billion is at stake, a sum that had been transferred from various federal accounts not involved with building the wall. The appeals court held that the lower court should not have dismissed this lawsuit because the House of Representatives had standing to bring this lawsuit even if the U.S. Senate was not involved with this litigation. Accordingly, the case was returned to the lower court for additional findings, with the appeals court noting that the Constitution’s Appropriation’s Clause serves as an important check on the Executive Branch. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Federal Court Opinion Has Huge Impact on the Construction Industry

July 06, 2020 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia recently issued an opinion that should get the attention of any contractor or subcontractor performing work on a federal funded construction project. In U.S. ex rel IBEW Local 98 v. The Fairfield Company, the federal court held that a contractor on a SEPTA project could be held liable under the False Claims Act for failing to pay its workers under the Davis Bacon Act. The court found that liability was appropriate under the FCA even through the contractor did not knowingly violate the Davis Bacon Act. The court awarded the plaintiff over $1,000,000 in damages and an additional over $1,000,000 in attorneys fees. An Extremely Brief Primer on the FCA A full discussion of the FCA is beyond the realm of this blog post and you could write a book on FCA cases. But in a nutshell, the FCA prohibits a contractor from knowingly submitting a claim for payment to the federal government (or an entity receiving funding from the federal government, like SEPTA) that is false. Importantly, knowingly does not equal actual knowledge of the falsity of the claim. Rather, “reckless disregard of the truth or falsity” of the submission is sufficient. As explained below, this standard played an important role in the court’s decision and should give contractors performing work on federally funded projects pause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

See the Stories That Drew the Most Readers to ENR.com in 2023

January 16, 2024 — C.J. Schexnayder - Engineering News-Record
As construction's very busy and eventful year nears its close and the sector awaits many more ups and downs in 2024, ENR offers a look back at the Top 20 news stories that most caught readers' attention across a broad market spectrum—from the construction start of the long-awaited $16 billion New York-New Jersey rail tunnel rebuild and winners shortlisted for the first $7 billion in U.S. government funds for developing clean-energy hydrogen hubs to the still unfolding legal battle over Las Vegas Sphere project complexities and why a Texas jury awarded $860 million in a fatal Texas crane collapse verdict. Reprinted courtesy of C.J. Schexnayder, Engineering News-Record Mr. Schexnayder may be contacted at schexnayderc@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards

September 25, 2018 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In response to national outrage over an infamous adverse possession case in Boulder, Colorado, in which a lawyer and a judge intentionally took their neighbors’ undeveloped land through adverse possession, the Colorado legislature amended the state’s adverse possession statute (C.R.S. § 38-41-101) to make the claim significantly harder to prove. It did this because it believed “there were insufficient ‘obstacles’ to establishing a claim for adverse possession under the existing law.”[1] Effective July 1, 2008, the amendment created a heightened burden of proof, additional element requirements, and the possibility of a losing defendant recovering money from successful plaintiffs for the value of the land they took and the taxes the defendant had paid on that land. The Boulder case eventually settled, but the resulting statutory amendments have drastically changed the landscape of Colorado’s adverse possession law. Ten years later, this blog post takes a brief look at the amended statute, the impact it has had, and questions that have yet to be resolved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses

May 18, 2020 — Richard W. Brown & Andres Avila - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The draft legislation, entitled the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020 (“PRIA”), would establish a Federal Pandemic Risk Reinsurance Fund and Program (the “Program”), that is intended to provide a system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption (“BI”) losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease. PRIA, in its current draft form, is modeled after and in many ways mirrors the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act that was enacted to address catastrophic losses resulting from acts of terrorism. PRIA effectively mandates that participating insurers provide coverage for any business interruption loss resulting from an outbreak of infectious disease or pandemic that is declared an emergency or major disaster by the President and certified by the Secretary of Treasury (the “Secretary”) as a public health emergency. PRIA would be triggered in the case of certified public health emergencies upon the aggregate industry insured losses exceed $250 million dollars, and include an annual aggregate limit capped at $500 billion dollars. The draft bill provides that the Secretary would administer the Program and pay the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, which would be 95% of losses in excess of an applicable insurer annual deductible, once the Program is triggered. The compensation would benefit those insurers that elect to participate in the Program in exchange for a premium paid by the participating insurer for reinsurance coverage under the Program. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

“Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

April 20, 2017 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Recently, a reader reached out to me to ask about case examples of an engineer losing his insurance coverage because he agreed to a “heightened” or “best” standard of care. The reader stated that he was an insurance adviser who handled various construction professional coverages, and that in his experience it was very unusual to deny or limit damages because of a heightened standard of care. This comment led me to an informal survey of several insurance brokers that I deal with, and the general consensus is that instead of outright denying a claim, most E&O insurers will issue a “reservation of rights” letter. What that means is that the insurance company will defend the claim (i.e., pay for your lawyer to defend you and your Firm), but with the understanding that they are (potentially) denying any liability for any adverse money judgment against you. Inevitably, most such cases settle, but if they do not, the question then is whether the heightened duty created part of the damages. The insurer may ask to intervene in the lawsuit to ask the jury that question, in an effort to limit its share of the damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES