FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

June 15, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Sunland Group, the developer, is objecting to claims that it is responsible for corrosion damage in a residential building in Gold Coast, Australia, as reported in the Courier & Mail. Residents of Q1, the world’s tallest residential tower, are suing the developer, claiming that defects and corrosion “compromise the long-term durability and appearance of” the six-year-old building.



The developer has not only denied that there are defects in the building, but has also stated that the construction contract “did not warrant that the construction would be defects-free.” Sunland claimed that corrosion was due to the homeowners association having “failed to carry out the maintenance requirements.”



Repair of the building is expected to cost millions of dollars. Sunland denies that it should pay any of that.



Read the full story…

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

---

Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.

January 20, 2020 — David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement Blog
In a recent holding by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the court held that Georgia’s eight-year statute of repose applied to bar the project owner’s warranty claims. The renovation work by the contractor on the owner’s chemical tank constituted an improvement of real property, and thus, the statute of repose bared any claims eight years after substantial completion thereof. In addition, the court rejected the project owner’s claim that it qualified as a third-party beneficiary of an extended warranty contained in a report given by a subcontractor to the contractor. Factual Background In 2000, Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer Company (“Southern States”) hired Tampa Tank & Welding, Inc (“Tampa Tank”) to renovate a tank to hold sulfuric acid. The parties’ written contract contained an express one-year warranty for material and workmanship from the date of completion. Two years later, in January 2002, the tank renovation was completed. Tampa Tank contracted with Corrosion Control Inc. (“CCI”) to design, assist with, and test the cathodic corrosion system. CCI provided only consultation and did not provide any onsite installation. Upon completion of installation, CCI supplied a report to Tampa Tank that the system was properly installed and fully functioning. Additionally, a post–installation report from CCI to Tampa Tank calculated an estimated life expectancy of forty-three to forty-five years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context

January 04, 2021 — Kathleen A. Nelson & Jonathan R. Missen - Lewis Brisbois
The law in the State of Washington, albeit clear on issues regarding first party claimants, was recently challenged in the matter of Eye Associates Northwest, P.C. v. Sedgwick et. al. However, despite this challenge of first impression, the court limited the application of the term “first party claimant” (a term of art akin to “insured”) based upon the wording of a loss payee clause, as well as taking into consideration and harmonizing the wording of the leases, other provisions in the policy regarding tenant improvements, and the simple fact that Eye Associates was not named in the policy whatsoever. In Eye Associates, the plaintiff leased office space in a high-rise medical office building, insured by three separate insurance companies. A water loss caused damage to the plaintiff’s leased space, and the plaintiff brought suit against the owner of the building, its insurers, the property manager, a third-party administrator (TPA), and two individual adjusters assigned to inspect and adjust the water loss claim. Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen A. Nelson, Lewis Brisbois and Jonathan R. Missen, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Nelson may be contacted at Kathleen.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Missen may be contacted at Jonathan.Missen@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Just Decided – New Jersey Supreme Court: Insurers Can Look To Extrinsic Evidence To Deny a Defense

September 05, 2022 — Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Norman International, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company, No. 086155 (N.J. Aug. 11, 2022). At issue was coverage for a work-site injury and the interpretation of a policy exclusion for operations or activities performed by an insured in certain counties in New York. The case is significant in terms of addressing causation for purposes of the application of exclusions. But the more wide-reaching issue has nothing to do with the scope of the exclusion. The real story from Norman is the New Jersey high court’s pronouncement that an insurer, in certain circumstances, can use extrinsic evidence to deny a defense to its insured. New Jersey duty to defend law has been a jungle land and in need of more supreme court guidance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Billionaire Behind Victoria’s Secret Built His Version of the American Heartland

June 25, 2019 — Sophie Alexander - Bloomberg
Beyond emerald-green golf links, over snow-white fences, and past tree-lined cul-de-sacs rises the American fantasyland of billionaire Les Wexner. Here in the middle of Ohio, of all places, Wexner—the man behind Victoria’s Secret and its push-up-bra notions of female beauty—has brought to life his singular vision of the heartland. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sophie Alexander, Bloomberg

---

New Certification Requirements for Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns and Service-Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business Concerns Seeking Public Procurement Contracts

March 27, 2023 — Jennifer Harris, Timothy D. Matheny & Abby Bello Salinas - ConsensusDocs
Effective January 1, 2023, Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (VOSBs) and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (SDVOSBs) will be required to obtain Small Business Administration (SBA) certification to participate in any federal government agency VOSB or SDVOSB sole source or set-aside prime contracts. This change originated from a Final Rule (87 FR 73400) published by the SBA on November 29, 2022. As a result of this Final Rule, not only will VOSBs and SDVOSBs be required to re-visit, and in some cases re-apply for various certifications, but these new regulations will also impact joint ventures that rely on their member’s VOSB or SDVOSB status to bid public work. New Regulation Previously, a VOSB and SDVOSB could self-certify to perform set-aside and sole source projects on non-U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) procurements—a VOSB and SDVOSB only needed to be certified by the VA Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) when bidding on VA procurements contingent on its status. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Abby Bello Salinas, Law Clerk, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

August 20, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Lump sum subcontract? Perhaps not due to a recent ruling where the trial court said “No!” based on the language in the subcontract and contract documents generally incorporated into the subcontract. This is a ruling on an interpretation of a subcontract and contract documents incorporated into the subcontract that I do not agree with and struggle to fully comprehend. The issue was whether the subcontract amount was a lump sum or subject to an audit, adjustment, and definitization based on actual costs incurred. Of course, the subcontractor (or any person in any business) is not just interested in recouping actual costs, but there needs to be a margin to cover profit and home office overhead that does not get factored into field general conditions. In United States v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, 2018 WL 6571234 (M.D.Fla. 2018), a prime contractor was hired to perform work on a federal project. During the work, the Government issued the prime contractor a Modification that had a not-to-exceed value and required the prime contractor to track its costs for this Modification separate from other contract costs. In other words, based on this Modification, the prime contractor was paid its costs up to a maximum amount and the prime contractor would separately cost-code and track the costs for this work differently than other work it was performing under the prime contract. 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

---

Economic Damages and the Right to Repair Act: You Can’t Have it Both Ways

March 16, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
In 2002, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 800 also known as the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code Sections 895 et seq.) in an effort to stem a then rising tide in residential construction defect litigation. SB 800, which applies to newly constructed residential units including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003, was intended to curb residential construction defect lawsuits by giving developers and others in the construction chain an opportunity to repair construction defects before being sued in court. SB 800 also provides minimum construction standards and limits the time in which a homeowner can bring a claim for construction defects. In Acqua Vista Homeowners Association v. MWI, Case No. D068406 (January 26, 2017), the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District examined the circumstances in which homeowners can sue a material supplier under the Right to Repair Act. 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

---