FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

PFAS: From Happy Mistake to Ubiquity to Toxic Liability (But is there coverage?)

March 14, 2022 — Michael S. Levine & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Andrews Kurth
In 1938, a DuPont chemist’s experiment yielded not—as he first thought—a lumpen, waxy mistake, but a new chemical with remarkable properties: heat-resistance, chemical stability, and low surface friction. Decades of continuing experimentation yielded a class of chemicals with the capacity to make non-stick, water-resistant coatings. In time, these chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), would become a major component in thousands of consumer goods: food packaging, non-stick cookware, waterproof clothing, paint, stain-resistant carpets and furniture, and firefighting foams. The discovery of the toxicity of these remarkable chemicals lagged behind the widespread adoption, but eventually yielded a moniker that reflected PFAS’s stability and longevity: “Forever Chemicals.” In October 2021, the Biden administration announced a plan to address, among other concerns, PFAS’s migration to drinking water sources. EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan debuted the plan in Raleigh, North Carolina alongside Governor Roy Cooper. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause

March 21, 2022 — Brian C. Padove - ConsensusDocs
One of the foundational tenets of contract law is that a party may only be bound by terms they agree to, or in other words, if the party did not sign a contract, that party cannot be bound by the terms thereof. While this principle is generally unwavering, there are certain situations in which a non-signatory to a contract may still be bound by the terms of a contract. In particular, this non-signatory issue may arise when a payment bond claimant makes a bond claim, subsequently files a lawsuit, but the bond contains a forum selection clause different than the venue of the lawsuit and the surety seeks to enforce the bond’s forum selection clause. For example, the claimant may have filed its lawsuit against the surety in federal court, even though the bond provides language specifically mandating that no lawsuit shall be commenced by any claimant other than in a state court where the project is located. Thus, the question then becomes, can the surety enforce the forum selection clause against the claimant when the claimant did not sign the bond and/or never agreed to the terms thereof? The short answer, it depends (yes, that is a very lawyer-like answer). Given recent case law over the past decade, however, the surety has a strong argument in favor of enforcement of the forum selection clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Padove may be contacted at bpadove@watttieder.com

---

Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Returns to Newmeyer Dillion as Partner in Newport Beach Office

September 14, 2020 — Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer Dillion
Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer has rejoined the firm as a partner in the Newport Beach office. Schotemeyer will expand the firm’s Real Estate Litigation, Construction Litigation, Business Litigation and Labor & Employment practices and strengthen the firm’s legal offerings for companies operating without a dedicated in-house legal counsel. “We are thrilled to be welcoming Dutch back to Newmeyer Dillion. He brings a wealth of litigation experience and has served as a trusted advisor to companies facing myriad complex legal disputes,” said the firm’s Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff. “His experience as in-house counsel will greatly complement Newmeyer Dillion’s business-first mindset when it comes to providing legal counsel to our clients. He is an invaluable asset to the team.” Prior to rejoining Newmeyer Dillion, Schotemeyer was Vice President and Associate General Counsel for William Lyon Homes, Inc. and Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for Taylor Morrison. His experience as a corporate attorney has strengthened his ability to work with in-house counsel and serve as a relationship attorney that assists clients in managing legal needs by building the right team of legal specialists. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com

---

#12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In his article, “Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered,” attorney Tred R. Eyerly analyzed the Am. Home Assur. Co. case that involved a dispute between a developer and a subcontractor over fractured tiles: “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court first found that the fracturing of the stone floor tiles caused by the subcontractor's defective installation was the result of an 'occurrence.' There was no evidence that the subcontractor knew that its tile installation work was defective before the tiles fractured. Instead, the fracturing was an unexpected consequence of the defective installation.” Everly continues, “But there was no ‘property damage.’ For the subcontractor to prevail, the defective installation work had to be considered separate and distinct from the physical manifestation of the defective work. Under California law, coverage resulted from construction defects that involved physical injuries to other parts of the construction project.” Everly concludes, “Because there was no genuine issues of material fact as to the potential for coverage, there was no duty to defend.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

January 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
If you are a construction attorney like me (or anyone that takes cases to court), you deal with statutes of limitation on a daily basis. These statutes seem pretty simple. A party has “X” amount of time in which to file its lawsuit after accural of the cause of action. In a breach of contract suit, the accrual is the date of breach. Easy, right? Wrong, at least in some circumstances. Take for example, the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. PAE Applied Techs., LLC out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this unpublished opinion the Court looked at “continuous breach” versus “series of separate breaches.” The basic facts are that in 2000 Flour entered into a contract with PAE whereby PAE requested and claims to have received consent from Flour to a 2.3% administrative cost cap on Flour’s work on an Air Force contract. Flour claimed that it did not agree to this cap. In 2002, Flour begain billing PAE for its costs plus the 2.3% administrative markup and billed in this fashion for the first full year. However, in subsequent years and for the next 11 years, Flour billed PAE at a higher markup rate than the 2.3%. PAE disputed the increased markup and paid Flour at the 2.3% rate. Flour periodically protested but made no move to court until it filed suit in March of 2016. After a bench trial, the district court found that Flour had agreed to the cap and found for PAE. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

April 15, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I questioned whether to even write this post. Because, of course, YOU would never find yourself hightailing it out of town with the California Contractor’s State License Board (“CSLB”) sniffing down your tail pipes. Then again, mistaken identities occur all the time. So, here’s what you need to know if the CSLB mistakes you for one of “those” contractors. What violations are subject to CSLB enforcement actions? The CSLB can take enforcement actions based on any one of numerous violations set forth under the California Business and Professions Code (“B&P Code”), including: 1. B&P Code §7107: Abandonment of a construction project or operation without legal excuse. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

January 18, 2021 — Deb Hilmerson - Construction Executive
Creating a conscious and robust safety culture is essential to the bottom line. A history of, and reputation for, stringent safety protocols will help contractors win more bids and reduce potential exposure to costly fines. According to OSHA, one out of every five worker deaths is construction-related. Non-fatal construction-related injuries are rising. Now is not the time to be complacent, even for contractors with a clean, or relatively clean, safety record. Situations are changing and, in some cases, better, safer and more efficient options are becoming available. There are three areas of concern that deserve construction executives’ close attention. Safety Glasses or Face Shield Concerns in the Wake of COVID-19 Facial and eye injuries can occur any time a worker is nailing, cutting, grinding, welding, working with concrete or handling hazardous chemicals. Now with COVID-19 protocols requiring face coverings, there is an unanticipated aggravation: fogged safety glasses. Reprinted courtesy of Deb Hilmerson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The “Your Work” Exclusion—Is there a Trend against Coverage?

September 10, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Two more courts have weighed in on the “your work” exclusion in commercial general liability (CGL) policies, finding that contractors did not have coverage for work performed improperly. These cases highlight that whether you have coverage for poor workmanship will depend on the state’s law applied. It now appears that if you are in South Carolina or Massachusetts, you will not have coverage. The South Carolina case, Precision Walls, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, involved a subcontractor hired to tape insulation. After taping the insulation, a brick veneer was installed on the exterior. During the brick installation, the mason reported that the tape was losing its adhesion and the subcontractor was instructed to repair the problem. In order to access the tape, portions of the brick veneer had to be removed and re-installed. The subcontractor then sought coverage for the costs associated with repairing the tape. The insurer denied coverage and the subcontractor sued its insurer. The court ruled in favor of the insurer, finding that the defective tape was “your work” because it was “material furnished in connection” with the subcontractor’s work. The policy specifically excluded from coverage damage to property caused by “your work”. Thus, there was no coverage for the subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---