Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Construction Contract Clauses That May or May Not Have Your Vote – Part 3

November 23, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Scope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The third in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses that may determine whether you come out a winner.

Provision: Supervisory Personnel, Employees, and Authority to Bind Provisions

Typical Provision: ”At all times during performance of the Work, Subcontractor shall have at the job site a competent supervisor approved by Owner. Subcontractor’s supervisor shall be deemed a representative of Subcontractor and all communications given to Subcontractor’s supervisor shall be as binding as if such communications were given to Subcontractor. Should Contractor object to Subcontractor’s supervisor’s presence at the job site, or the presence at the job site, or the presence at the job site of any other employee or agent of Subcontractor or any employee or agent of Subcontractor of Subcontractor, Subcontractor shall cause such persons to be replaced immediately as directed by Contractor.”
What it Means: Higher-tiered parties have a legitimate interest in ensuring that only competent individuals are allowed to perform work on a project and in ensuring that there are peaceable relations at a job site. Higher-tiered parties also have an interest in ensuring that directives and agreements made and reached in the field are followed. However, it is unreasonable for higher-tiered party or to require that such personnel be able to bind that lower-tiered party to agreements best decided by others.
What You Can Do: Lower-tiered parties should seek to include language which provides that only “reasonable” changes to personnel are allowed and, as necessary, limit by category or issue the types of items on-site personnel can bind the lower-tiered party to.

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

Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

February 16, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's attempt to secure additional coverage beyond a $10,000 payment for water damage after a rain storm damaged the interior of its building failed. Bible World Christian Ctr. v. Colony Insurance Co, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175766 (M.D La. Dec. 20, 2016). The interior of Bible World's building was damaged by water that leaked in from the roof after a heavy rain storm. Bible World's officials met with Robert Chandler, an employee of Omni Insurance Group, the day after the rain event. Chandler had assisted Bible World in procuring its commercial property policy with Colony Insurance Company. Chandler told Bible World to fix the property and that its costs would be covered under the policy. Bible World spent $79,876.81 in repairs. 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

Slavin Doctrine and Defense from Patent Defects

June 13, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The Slavin doctrine is an affirmative defense primarily geared to the personal injury context designed to protect contractors from third-party negligence-type claims when an owner accepts a patent defect. The Slavin doctrine protects contractors from liability for injuries to third parties by presuming that the owner has made a “reasonably careful inspection” of the contractor’s work prior to accepting it as completed; if the owner accepts the contractor’s work as complete and an alleged defect is patent, then the owner “accepts the defects and the negligence that caused them as his own,” and the contractor will no longer be liable for the patent defect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Washington Court Tunnels Deeper Into the Discovery Rule

July 09, 2019 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Often times, properly analyzing when a statute of limitations begins to run – not just how long it runs – is crucial to timely pleading. In Dep’t of Transp. v. Seattle Tunnel Partners, 2019 Wash.App. LEXIS 281 (Was. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2019), Division Two of the Court of Appeals of Washington addressed when the discovery rule starts the statute of limitations clock on a negligence cause of action. The court held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows that the factual elements of the claim against the defendant exist. The clock starts to run even if the plaintiff wants to investigate the possibility of other contributing factors or the defendant identifies opposing viewpoints on the theory of the claim. In this matter, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) contracted with an engineering firm, WSP USA, Inc. (WSP), for an evaluation of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in 2001. As part of this project, WSP retained the services of Shannon and Wilson (S&W), another engineering firm, to conduct geological profile logs, groundwater-pumping tests, and prepare technical memoranda. In 2002, WSP and S&W installed a pumping well with an eight-inch steel casing (TW-2). In 2009, apparently based on the work done by WSP and S&W, WSDOT determined that a bored underground tunnel was the best option for replacing the viaduct. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Recent Opinions Clarify Enforceability of Pay-if-Paid Provisions in Construction Contracts

May 29, 2023 — Patrick McKnight - The Dispute Resolver
Several recent opinions and legislative actions have brought the controversial nature of pay-if-paid provisions into focus in early 2023. Pay-if-paid provisions are contractual mechanisms designed to shift the risk of non-payment from General Contractors to lower-tier subcontractors. In other words, pay-if-paid provisions generally do not require payment to downstream subs until after the GC or Prime are themselves paid in-full by the owner. Recent developments reflect the differing approaches taken by courts when addressing pay-if-paid provisions, ranging broadly from prohibition to full enforceability. Other jurisdictions fall somewhere in the middle, viewing such provisions with varying amounts of skepticism on the grounds heir impact on smaller downstream subs is disproportionate and unfair. Pay-if-paid provisions are often contrasted against “pay-when-paid” provisions. Pay-when-paid provisions may require payment within a specified duration but remove the upstream contractor’s payment in-full as a condition precedent. The brief discussion below will not explore pay-when-paid, no damage for delay provisions, or statutory prompt payment acts. Instead, this article serves as a primer on recent legal developments related to pay-if-paid provisions exclusively. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

Power & Energy - Emerging Insurance Coverage Cases of Interest

November 30, 2020 — David G. Jordan & Tiffany Casanova - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Power & Energy sector faces a multitude of risks that impact output and profitability, requiring sound risk management and robust insurance programs. As of recent, like most industries, there have been significant challenges facing the industry in light of COVID-19. These issues, including decreased product demand as well as supply- side issues, have been well documented. However, other issues continue to impact Power & Energy providers, with significant insurance coverage implications that are worthy of note. Below is a summary of three open cases of interest, where declaratory relief has been sought by energy providers’ insurance carriers, seeking an avoidance of coverage. 1. Fracking Dispute and “Intentional Acts” In the Texas case of The James River Insurance Co. v. Clearpoint Chemicals LLC et al., No. 4:20-cv-0076 (N.D.Tex), James River Insurance Company (“James River”) is asking a federal district court to declare that it does not owe defense or indemnity to its insured for acts it defines as both intentional and/or malicious acts. Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Ms. Casanova may be contacted at TCasanova@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Priority of Liability Insurance Coverage and Horizontal and Vertical Exhaustion

June 22, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Recently, I participated in a webinar involving the horizontal and vertical exhaustion of insurance coverage. Say what? This pertains to the PRIORITY of liability insurance coverage and the interface between a general contractor’s (or upstream party’s) primary insurance and the subcontractor’s (or downstream party’s) excess insurance, particularly when the general contractor is required to be indemnified by the subcontractor and named as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s liability policies. For instance, let’s assume the general contractor has a $2M primary policy and a $5M excess policy. Its subcontractor has a $1M primary and a $5M excess policy. The general contractor is an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policies and the subcontractor is required to contractually indemnify the general contractor. An issue occurs caused by the subcontractor’s negligence resulting in a $5M judgment against the general contractor and the subcontractor. 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

Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

June 08, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are cases where you feel for the plaintiff, but understand why they did not prevail, despite the creative efforts of their counsel. The case of Robinson v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 958 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2020) is one of these cases. In Robinson, the plaintiff moved into a home that turned out to be infested with a highly venomous spider. Efforts to eradicate the spider proved unsuccessful and the spider apparently infested the entire home. The plaintiff made a claim under their homeowner’s property insurance policy arguing that their home suffered a physical loss caused by the spider infestation as the spider presented an irreparable condition that rendered the home unsafe for occupancy. (It probably did!). The property insurer denied coverage because the policy had an insurance exclusion for loss caused by birds, vermin, rodents, or insects. The insurer claimed the spider is an insect or vermin and, therefore, there is no coverage based on the exclusion. The insured creatively argued that “scientifically speaking” a spider is an arachnid and not an insect. Neither the trial court nor the Eleventh Circuit found this argument persuasive. 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