Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New Change Order Bill Becomes Law: RCW 39.04.360

July 08, 2024 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
A new statute (RCW 39.04.360) became effective on June 6, 2024, and it applies to extra work performed by contractors and subcontractors on public and private projects in Washington State. The intent of the original bill was to allow contractors and subcontractors to get paid sooner for undisputed additional work. The statute does not apply to private residential projects of 12 units or less. The statute allows for recovery of interest for contractors/subcontractors at 1% per month (12% per year) on the value of the additional work if the statute is violated. Here are the requirements of the new statute:

Public and private owners must issue a change order for the undisputed amount of additional work performed by a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier no later than 30 days after the work is satisfactorily completed and the change is requested by the contractor.
General contractors, and subcontractors with lower-tier subs, must issue a change order to their subcontractors impacted by the change within 10 days after receipt of the approved change order from the owner/upper-tier contractor.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Columbus Business First, a report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that “assessed the structural integrity of the Buckeye Lake Dam [located in Ohio] and found serious problems that present significant risks to the public.” Problems arose, allegedly, from “construction of homes [and] pools and patios that have been built into the earthen embankment.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report stated (according to Columbus Business First) “there was a potential for an eight-foot wave of water, mud and debris that would inundate an area as far as Hebron, more than two miles away.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COVID-19 Vaccine Considerations for Employers in the Construction Industry

July 11, 2021 — Maggie Spell - ConsensusDocs
1. Can employers in the construction industry require employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment? In short, it depends. Back in December 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) explained that, generally speaking (and under federal law), employers can require employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. However, there are a few caveats. First, certain employees may need to be excused from a mandatory vaccination requirement as a reasonable accommodation unless it will present undue hardship. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers must provide reasonable accommodations to employees with a covered disability that prevents them from receiving the vaccine. (Fact sheets for the COVID-19 vaccines include examples of some of the underlying medical conditions that may result in an accommodation request.) And under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are similarly required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances that prevent them from getting the vaccine. Employers requiring the vaccination would be wise to consult with an experienced employment lawyer before denying an accommodation. Accommodation issues stemming from administration of the COVID-19 vaccine (and COVID-19 more generally) are likely to plague employers for a while, so getting ahead of this issue is key. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Spell, Jones Walker LLP
Ms. Spell may be contacted at mspell@joneswalker.com

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

Clean Energy and Conservation Collide in California Coastal Waters

March 19, 2024 — Nadia Lopez & Josh Saul - Bloomberg
Two of President Joe Biden’s biggest priorities — conservation and the switch to clean energy — are colliding in the ocean off California’s quiet Central Coast. Located halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles, Morro Bay boasts a rich ecosystem of fish, otters and migrating whales that the Indigenous Chumash people want to protect with a new marine sanctuary. But 20 miles (32 kilometers) out, developers plan some of the West Coast’s first offshore wind farms, where 1,100-foot-tall turbines (335 meters) tethered to the seabed will help California cut its carbon emissions. One US government agency appears poised to approve the sanctuary. Another already leased 376 square miles of ocean for wind development, just outside the sanctuary’s boundaries. Now, a fight is brewing over whether the scenic bay itself should be left out of the sanctuary, to give undersea power cables from the wind farms a place to come onshore. Reprinted courtesy of Nadia Lopez, Bloomberg and Josh Saul, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Court-Side Seat: Citizen Suits, “Facility” Management and Some Nuance for Your Hazard Ranking

September 28, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Some very interesting and fairly complex environmental law rulings have been released in the past few days. U.S. Supreme Court—Trump, et al. v. Sierra Club, et al. On July 31, 2020, in a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court denied a motion to lift the stay entered by the Court a few days earlier. The earlier action stayed a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which had enjoined the construction of a wall along the Southern Border of the United States which was to be constructed with redirected Department of Defense funds. The merits will be addressed by the lower court and perhaps the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—Meritor, Inc. v. EPA In a case involving EPA’s administration of the Superfund National Priority List (NPL) of priority Superfund sites requiring expedited cleanup, the court held that EPA had acted in accordance with the law and its implementing rules, and denied relief. Meritor was spun off from Rockwell Corporation, and is responsible for Rockwell’s environmental liabilities, including sites Meritor never operated. In 2016, EPA added the Rockwell International Wheel & Trim facility in Grenada, Miss., to the NPL list. Meritor alleged that this listing was arbitrary and capricious, pointing to EPA’s failure to adequately consider the impact of a mitigation measure added to the facility to address vapor intrusion, a factor EPA must consider in its application of the agency’s hazard ranking system. However, the court was not impressed by these arguments, and denied relief. The court’s discussion of the nuances of the hazard ranking system is very instructive 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

Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?

September 20, 2021 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Courts overseeing receivers generally enjoy broad discretion in directing and approving a receiver’s proposed actions. But does that authority extend to a receiver not only granting a super-priority lien ahead of existing liens, but also selling the real property free and clear of all liens? In County of Sonoma v. Quail, 56 Cal.App.5th 657 (Ct. App. 2020), the California Court of Appeals answered that question in the affirmative. Quail involved a 47,480 square-foot lot with two houses, a few garages, several outbuildings, and numerous trailers surrounded by a veritable junk yard. Despite many of these structures being uninhabitable, unsanitary, and dangerous, multiple families resided on the lot. Although Sonoma County (the “County”) ordered the owner to remediate the property several times, he failed and refused to do so. After several years of these violations going unabated, the County ultimately sought and obtained the appointment of a receiver over the real property. To obtain funds necessary to repair the property, the receiver asked the court for permission to borrow money through the issuance of a receivership certificate to be secured by a super-priority lien—i.e., a lien ahead of all other liens—against the real property. Although the trial court initially declined to prime existing liens, when the receiver could find no one to lend money (since the land lacked equity), the trial court relented and approved a super-priority lien despite the senior secured lender’s objection (the “lender”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

October 26, 2017 — Michael C. Zisa & Susan Elliot – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Two recent decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Federal Claims highlight that sureties and bond producers are not immune to the potentially severe consequences of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and related federal fraud statutes. In each case, the Court determined that sureties and bond producers can face potential liability under these fraud statutes for direct and indirect submission of false claims to the federal government Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Susan Elliott, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzisa@pecklaw.com Ms. Elliott may be contacted at selliott@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES