FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

When a Construction Lender Steps into the Shoes of the Developer, the Door is Open for Claims by the General Contractor

February 18, 2015 — Kevin Brodehl – California Construction Law Blog
Thank you to my partner Garret Murai for giving me the opportunity to post again on his excellent California Construction Law Blog. I am the author/editor of the Money and Dirt Blog, where I focus on issues relating to real estate investment, development, and secured lending. On the Money and Dirt Blog, I recently posted an article on an interesting new secured lending opinion from the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District in Riverside), California Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti. That blog post focused on guaranty liability, and the court’s holding that there are limits to the defenses that a guarantor can lawfully waive. But that same decision also highlights valuable lessons regarding the relationship between construction lenders and general contractors in distressed projects, which I’ll cover here. In short, the court held that when a construction lender “steps into the shoes” of the developer to manage a distressed project, the lender might open the door to liability to the general contractor under theories of breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Brodehl, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Bordehl may be contacted at kbrodehl@wendel.com

---

If You Don’t Like the PPP Now, Wait a Few Minutes…Major Changes to PPP Loan Program as Congress Passes Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act

July 27, 2020 — Ryan J. Udell & Adam J. Chelminiak - White and Williams LLP
On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (the Flexibility Act). The Flexibility Act provides much-needed flexibility for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and its millions of business participants. The PPP offers loans to small businesses that have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by various governmental authorities to stem the spread of the virus so that they could keep their employees on the payroll during an eight-week period after receiving the funds. The PPP was particularly alluring to borrowers because the loans could be forgiven. But as the duration of lockdown orders and the accompanying economic aftershocks have extended longer than initially anticipated, particularly in those sectors that depend on in-person business such as restaurants, hospitality and other “main street” retail establishments, many recipients of PPP loans have found it challenging to use the PPP funds for payroll and other authorized purposes within the eight-week period after they had received the PPP funds, as is necessary to preserve eligibility for forgiveness. The Flexibility Act makes several key changes to the PPP program in order to allow borrowers who need a longer re-opening runway to do so without jeopardizing their ability to qualify for loan forgiveness. This alert outlines the key changes to the PPP made by the Flexibility Act. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan J. Udell, White and Williams LLP and Adam J. Chelminiak, White and Williams LLP Mr. Udell may be contacted at udellr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Chelminiak may be contacted at chelminiaka@whiteandwilliams.com; Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Workers at Two NFL Stadiums Test Positive for COVID-19, But Construction Continues

April 13, 2020 — Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-Record
Construction at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, Calif., and Allegiant Stadium outside Las Vegas—two new NFL stadiums scheduled to open in 2020—continue forward despite a worker at each location testing positive for COVID-19. Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions

June 02, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
The lawsuits required to perfect and foreclose upon a lien have confused lien claimants and their attorneys for years. This confusion was recently demonstrated in a recent case entitled Founders Kitchen and Bath, Inc. v. Alexander, No. A15A1262, 2015 WL 6875026 (Ga. App. 2015). In the case, the trial court granted an owner’s motion for summary judgment against a subcontractor that sought to foreclose on its materialman’s lien. In deciding to reverse the trial court’s decision, the Court held that issues of material fact still existed as to whether the owner and subcontractor were in privity of contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A new report suggests that fears of construction defect litigation may be the cause of the slump in condo building in the Denver area. The Denver Business Journal reports that the Denver Regional Council of Governments commissioned the study by Economic & Planning Systems. The conclusion of the report was that the only type of condominium likely to be built is high-cost units with high profit margins. This is not good news for the DRCOG, which is seeking to create more affordable housing. The report found that builders assess the likeliness of being sued “is nearly 100 percent,” that costs of addressing construction defects are 12% higher than at apartment complexes, and that preparing for litigation adds about $15,000 to the cost of a condo unit. One possible remedy is to reform Colorado’s construction defect laws. Bob Muphy, the mayor of Lakewook and an advocate of construction defect litigation reform, said that he sees “this as a verification of what I’ve been talking about.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

January 27, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reiterated that the duty to defend broadly requires a liability insurer to defend an entire lawsuit against its insured, even where only some of the allegations are potentially covered. The court further held that the insured has no obligation to apportion defense costs among multiple implicated policies. The decision, Selective Way Insurance Company v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., can be found here. The coverage litigation arose out of a construction defect case against a general contractor. The general contractor tendered the action to its insurer, Nationwide, which, in turn, filed a declaratory judgment action against the various insurers of construction project subcontractors that had named the general contractor as an additional insured. Ultimately, the court granted a summary judgment motion declaring that all of the subcontractors’ insurers had a duty to defend the general contractor “because the allegations in the underlying lawsuit raised claims that potentially arose from the [s]ubcontractors’ work at the [construction site].” All of the subcontractors’ insurers settled with Nationwide except for one, Selective Way; and the parties proceeded to a jury trial on various issues. The jury found for Nationwide on all issues. Selective Way appealed. Selective Way argued on appeal that even if some of the allegations were covered under its policy, it had no obligation to defend the general contractor because its insureds, the subcontractors, could not have been responsible for all of the losses given the nature of their work. Further, Selective Way contended that if it was responsible for defending the general contractor, it was not responsible for the entire defense, and the general contractor was responsible for apportioning the costs among the various subcontractors. The panel disagreed on both points. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The (Jurisdictional) Rebranding of The CDA’s Sum Certain Requirement

April 15, 2024 — Jordan A. Hutcheson and Stephanie Rolfsness - Watt Tieder
The Contract Disputes Act (the “CDA”), 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 7101 et seq., which has provided the statutory framework for resolution of most contract disputes between the federal government and its contractors since 1978, has recently been the subject of changes in judicial interpretation, despite no corresponding statutory changes. The CDA’s implementing provisions in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), require that contractors submit a claim to the government in the form of written demand to a contracting officer requesting a final decision and seeking the payment of money in a sum certain prior to pursuing resolution via board or court. However, with respect to the sum certain requirement, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in late 2023 determining that this requirement “should not be given the jurisdictional brand” as it has categorically received in the past. Rather, the court concluded that the sum certain requirement is merely an element of a claim for relief under the CDA that a contractor must satisfy to recover. This rebranding does not debase the sum certain requirement, but it does indicate a renewed focus on what constitutes “jurisdictional” in government contracts litigation. Reprinted courtesy of Jordan A. Hutcheson, Watt Tieder and Stephanie Rolfsness, Watt Tieder Ms. Hutcheson may be contacted at jhutcheson@watttieder.com Ms. Rolfsness may be contacted at srolfsness@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Changing Course Midstream Did Not Work in River Dredging Project

December 10, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
A contractor learned a $12M lesson when it tried to change course on a Corps of Engineer river dredging project. The case also illustrates the importance of documenting problems on a project and providing notice of those problems to the owner. In Weston/Bean Joint Venture v U.S., Weston/Bean was awarded a Corps of Engineers project to provide maintenance dredging on the Miami River to a depth of 15 feet. The contract noted that the contractor may experience sediment, debris and rock, including soft to moderately hard limestone. The contractor encountered rocks early on in the project, but consistently submitted reports to the Corps of Engineers that nothing was experienced on the project that would lead to a change order or claim. And, for the first year of operations, the contractor made no claim for differing site conditions. Instead, the contractor terminated the subcontractor for not being able to process the rock uncovered during the dredging process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---