Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

October 11, 2017 — Kevin Walton - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Colorado, courts enforce liquidated damages provisions if three elements are satisfied: (1) the parties intended to liquidate damages; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was a reasonable estimate of the presumed actual damages caused by a breach; and (3) at the time of contracting, it was difficult to ascertain the amount of actual damages that would result from a breach. But what happens when a contract gives a party a right to choose between liquidated damages or actual damages? This seems troublesome because it allows a party to set the floor for their damages without limitation if actual damages exceed the contractual amount. As a matter of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed this issue in Ravenstar, LLC v. One Ski Hill Place, LLC, 401 P.3d 552 (Colo. 2017). In Ravenstar, plaintiffs contracted to buy condominiums from a developer. As part of their contracts, plaintiffs deposited earnest money and construction deposits equal to 15% of each unit’s purchase price. Plaintiffs breached their contract by failing to obtain financing and failing to close by the closing date. Each contract’s damages provision provided that if a purchaser defaulted, the developer had the option to retain all or some of the deposits as liquidated damages or, alternatively, to pursue actual damages and apply the deposits to that award. After plaintiffs defaulted, the developer chose to keep plaintiffs’ deposits as liquidated damages. Plaintiffs sued for return of their deposits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Walton may be contacted at kwalton@swlaw.com

FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

April 05, 2017 — Matthew Campbell & Greg Farrell - Bloomberg
The Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested one person in connection with the death of a construction worker at Imperial Pacific International Holdings Ltd.’s casino on the remote U.S. island of Saipan, according to an agency spokeswoman. “The FBI conducted a search and made an arrest in response to the recent death of an individual working at the construction site of the Imperial Pacific Resort,” Michele Ernst, a spokeswoman in the FBI’s Honolulu field office, said in an email Friday. “The investigation is related to allegations of a federal violation of the workplace visa system, including reports the company was systematically harboring individuals who are out of status and in violation of federal statutes." Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Campbell, Bloomberg and Greg Farrell, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Architectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches Lawsuit

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
El Associates Architects and Engineers is suing the Boyertown School District after the district fired them for underestimating the cost of an expansion project. The school district, located in Pennsylvania, was seeking to increase student capacity. El Associates estimate lead to a $55 million budget, but D’Huy Engineering, the district’s construction management firm, estimated $70 million for the project. After the Boyertown School District hired KCBA Architects, El Associates filed suit. El Associates contends that it had followed the contract requirements and that the school district was in violation of the contract’s provisions on terminating the agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Home insurance perks for green-friendly design (guest post)

February 04, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
Wondering how to get your residential clients to pony up more money for green design? Check out today’s guest post by Carrie Van Brunt-Wiley and Katherine Wood. They are writers for the Homeowners’ Insurance Blog, which serves as a resource center for insurance consumers and homebuyers across the country. The U.S. Green Building Council’s new LEEDv4 standards present challenges for contractors, engineers, and architects – the restrictions in many cases are more stringent. There is, however an added bonus to remaining on the sustainable-building track: it’s more marketable than you think. That’s because green homes don’t just appeal to buyers with environmental concerns any more. Now smart budgeters seek them out as well. Why? While it’s true that sustainable construction can cost about 2% more than conventional methods, McGraw-Hill’s Smart Market Report says it typically increases a building’s overall value by an average of 7.5% and improves the return on investment by 6.6%. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

April 27, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
On January 27th, Senator Robert Rodriguez introduced SB 20-138 into the Colorado Legislature. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and has not yet been scheduled for its first hearing in that committee. In short, Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would:

Extend Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
Require tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
Permit statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.

Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims are codified at C.R.S. § 13-80-104. In 1986, the Colorado Legislature set the statute of repose period at 6+2 years. For the last 34 years, Colorado’s statute of repose for owners’ claims against construction professionals has been substantially the same, to wit:

(1) (a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.

(2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19

August 24, 2020 — Helga A. Zauner & Sonia Desai - Construction Executive
Every industry has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and construction is no exception. While construction work was deemed essential in some places, it has been limited only to pandemic-related projects in others. In the current climate, construction companies face a myriad new challenges, including concerns about health and safety, delays resulting from employee illnesses, supply chain disruptions and increased prices for materials, as well as contract delays or cancellations by concerned contract owners. Contractors must keep their employees safe and institute what could be costly best-practice measures, while facing potential claims from employees if they get sick due to a company’s perceived lack of response to the dangers of the coronavirus. Stakeholders in the construction process need to prepare for potential disputes and understand their rights and responsibilities. This includes understanding applicable clauses in construction contracts and subcontractor agreements as well as business interruption clauses and other provisions in insurance contracts. Stakeholders may need to seek professional counsel to help them understand their rights and responsibilities in potential disputes. Reprinted courtesy of Helga A. Zauner & Sonia Desai, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Ms. Zauner may be contacted at helga.zauner@weaver.com Ms. Desai may be contacted at sonia.desai@weaver.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

March 07, 2011 — Steven M. Cvitanovic

Contractors should always be sure that they understand the licensing in any Subcontract or Prime Contract before entering into any agreement. However, on March 3, 2011, in the case of Pacific Casson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros., Inc. 2011 Cal.App.Lexis 236, the Court of Appeal determined that if a specialty license is subsumed within another license, the specialty license may not be required.

Bernards entered into a subcontract with Pacific to excavate, backfill, grade and provide geotechnical design parameters for a hospital. The Prime Contract required the bidder to maintain a Class C-12 specialty earthwork license. However, Pacific only held a Class A general engineering license which it turns out was suspended during the performance of the work. Pacific sued Bernards for nonpayment of $544,567, but the lawsuit was dismissed because the trial court found that Pacific (1) lacked a C-12 license, and (2) Pacific’s Class A license was suspended for failure to pay an unrelated judgment. Pacific was also ordered to disgorge $206,437 in prior payments.

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeal agreed with Pacific and held that a C-12 specialty license was not required despite the Prime Contract. The Court of Appeal found that the C-12 specialty license would have been “superfluous” since it was fully encompassed within the Class A requirements. However, the Court of Appeal also remanded the case for further

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.

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

First-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to Cure

October 19, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a first party bad-faith lawsuit, such as a bad faith claim against an insured’s property insurer, there are three requirements that must be met before the bad faith lawsuit is filed: “‘(1) determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required notice must be filed under section 624.155(3)(a).’” Fortune v. First Protective Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2092a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citation omitted). The third requirement is for the insured to file a Civil Remedy Notice (known as a “CRN”) as a condition precedent to filing a statutory bad faith lawsuit giving the insurer 60 days’ notice of the bad faith violation and to cure the violation, i.e., pay the claim if the violation is payment. A very common bad faith payment violation is the assertion that the insurer did NOT attempt “in good faith to settle claims when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured and with due regard for his or her interests.” Fla. Stat. s. 624.155(1)(b)(1). 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES