Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law write Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly addressing the question of “whether defective construction constitutes an ‘occurrence’ (and therefore may be covered) under liability insurance policies.” They note that some courts have held that construction defects are not an occurrence but instead are the “natural consequence of performing substandard work.” Other courts conclude that while construction defects are not occurrences, “the resulting damage may be covered because it was fortuitous and unintended.” And, finally, other courts have concluded that “defective construction work itself is accidental and the inured rarely expects construction defects.” Mandel and Raab put forth that “these decisions essentially provide insured with huge, unintended and unfair windfalls – performance bonds for basically no premium.” Legislatures have also looked at this issue, passing laws that mandate that construction defects are occurrences. These are all fairly recent and the courts have yet to address these laws, and Mandel and Raab note that “it is unclear what their ultimate effect on the ‘occurrence’ issue will be.” They do not expect the laws to end litigation over whether construction defects are occurrences. Finally, they discuss what the ultimate results of these court decisions and laws will be. Insurers might write more policy exclusions, or increase premiums, or even cease insuring construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse

October 11, 2021 — David J. Pfeffer - Construction Executive
A tragedy transpired on June 24 in Surfside, Florida, when the Champlain Towers South suddenly fell, becoming one of the country’s most deadly unintentional building collapses. It is imperative that construction industry professionals be aware of the legal issues that are raised by such ill-fated events. Who Is Held Responsible? Who can be held responsible for such disasters lies among several possible parties:

The building’s design professionals, particularly its architects and structural engineers. They are charged with ensuring that the building’s design is safe. They must take many factors into account, including, but not limited to, the materials that are used, the foundation, the weight and the height.
General contractors and the subcontractors. General contractors implement the design created by the architects and engineers and are responsible for appropriate materials. The general contractor also supervises the subcontractors aiding with multiple areas of the building’s construction and which also share the responsibility of executing the design and maintaining the building’s structural integrity.

Reprinted courtesy of David J. Pfeffer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Pfeffer may be contacted at dpfeffer@tarterkrinsky.com

Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

September 16, 2024 — Joseph Barra - Robinson+Cole
“The Massachusetts Legislature passed the state’s Prompt Pay Act 14 years ago to improve the downstream flow of money on most large-scale private construction projects. While the act established detailed protocols for administering applications for payment and other important construction phase processes, several questions about its interpretation and impact remained unanswered. Over the years, I watched as a significant portion of the Massachusetts design and construction community either ignored the law’s exacting requirements or were unaware of their applicability. The first indication of how the act would be interpreted came in 2022, when the state appeals court decided Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners LLC. In that case, the court strictly construed the act. It held that an owner (and its agent) who failed to promptly advise the project’s general contractor of specific factual and legal reasons why it was withholding payment, coupled with a failure to certify that funds were being withheld in good faith, violated the law—making the contractor liable for the unpaid funds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Barra, Robinson+Cole
Mr. Barra may be contacted at jbarra@rc.com

Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

June 10, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The State of Florida has frozen the assets of Nationwide Pools over claims of deceptive practices. Nationwide will be allowed to engage in pool construction during the lawsuit. The Florida Attorney General’s office alleges that Nationwide Pools failed to pay subcontractors, misrepresented warranties, and left customers with unfinished pools. The State of Florida is seeking restitution to consumers who did business with Nationwide Pools. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

February 18, 2019 — Smith Currie
The California Legislature introduced more than 2637 bills in the second half of the 2017-2018 session that became law effective January 1, 2019, many of which address employment issues facing California employers in the construction industry. Below we have summarized some of the more important laws (the summary titles are live links to the text of the new law), and employers are urged to protect their companies by updating contracts, policies, and/or practices for compliance. The following is for general knowledge, and we recommend you consult with your attorney for specific legal advice. AB 1565 – Contractor Wage Liability: AB 1565 repeals the provision that relieved direct contractors for liability for anything other than unpaid wages and fringe or other benefit payments or contributions, including interest owed. In the past, a direct contractor could withhold “disputed” sums owed to a subcontractor if the subcontractor failed to provide “information” about their and lower-tier subcontractors’ payroll records. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie
Smith Currie attorneys may be contacted at info@smithcurrie.com

Weed Property Owner Gets Smoked Under Insurance Policy

May 10, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
When’s the last time you read your homeowner’s insurance policy? Didn’t think so. But you might consider doing so, particularly in light of all of the discussions surrounding climate change – a nearly 2 degree Fahrenheit increase in summer temperatures over the past 20 years – and studies finding that wildfires in California could increase by 20% or more by the 2040s, and that the total burned area could increase by 25% or more. In the next case, Vulk v. State Farm (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 243, one homeowner found out too late (after his house burned to the ground) that his homeowner’s insurance policy didn’t provide the coverage that he thought it did. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

June 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES