FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

November 04, 2019 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements. The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes. With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:

• The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
  • The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
  • A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
  • Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
  Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
  Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

  ---

  Oracle Sues Procore, Claims Theft of Trade Secrets for ERP Integration

  November 25, 2024 — Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-Record
  Oracle, Inc., has sued Procore in federal court in Northern California, accusing the construction management platform provider of stealing confidential information related to developing enterprise resource planning products for contractors. Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
  Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

  ---

  Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

  September 15, 2016 — White and Williams LLP
  The 2017 Best Lawyers in America list includes twelve White and Williams lawyers. Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services.
  2017 Best Lawyers
  • Frank Bruno, Patent Law
  • Richard Campbell, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
  • James Coffey, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
  • Timothy Davis, Real Estate Law
  • William Hussey, Tax Law; Trusts and Estates
  • Michael Kraemer, Employment Law - Management; Labor Law - Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment
  • Randy Maniloff, Insurance Law
  • John Orlando, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
  • Thomas Rogers, Real Estate Law
  • Joan Rosoff, Real Estate Law
  • Craig Stewart, Insurance Law; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
  • William Taylor, Construction Law
  Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP
  

  ---

  Endorsement to Insurance Policy Controls

  March 28, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
  I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: an insurance policy is a complicated reading and this reading gets compounded with endorsements that modify aspects of the policy. What you think may be covered may in fact not be covered by virtue of an endorsement to the insurance policy. This is why when you request an insurance policy you want to see the policy PLUS all endorsements to the policy. And when you analyze a policy, you need to do so with a full reading of the endorsements. An endorsement to an insurance policy will control over conflicting language in the policy. Geovera Speciality Ins. Co. v. Glasser, 47 Fla.L.Weekly D436a (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (citation omitted). The homeowner’s insurance coverage dispute in Glasser illustrates this point. Here, the policy had a water loss exclusion. There was an exception to the exclusion for an accidental discharge or overflow of water from a plumbing system on the premises. But there was an endorsement. The endorsement modified the water loss exclusion to clarify that the policy excluded water damage “in any form, including but not limited to….” Examples were then given which did not include the accidental discharge or overflow of water from a plumbing system. 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

  ---

  Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/13/22

  April 25, 2022 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
  Phishing schemes target the mortgage industry, housing prices rise in Europe as Ukrainian refugees flee from their home country, the SEC announces new climate change regulations that will impact commercial real estate, and more.
  • The Federal Reserve aims to rein in one of the biggest drivers of runaway inflation: the U.S. housing market. (Lance Lambert, Fortune)
  • Late last month, the SEC announced that publicly traded organizations would soon need to disclose their climate change risks and exposure, causing a shake up in the real estate industry. (Hiten Samtani, The Real Deal)
  • As the purpose of in-person office work continues to be questioned, the return to office debate causes challenges for occupier services, a backbone of commercial real estate. (Patrick Sisson, Bisnow)
  Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
  

  ---

  Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

  January 26, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
  In Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co. (No. F069953, filed 12/11/15) a California appeals court held that policy wording that the collapse coverage for damage “caused only by” certain specified perils did not mean “solely” by those specified perils, but that coverage may nonetheless apply even if excluded causes contributed to the loss, under the Insurance Code section 530 and the efficient proximate cause rule. In Vardanyan, the insured made a claim for water damage from unknown origin to a rental house. An engineer concluded that the various sources of moisture—roof leaks, gutters and downspouts that did not channel the water away from the house, a faucet spraying water on the exterior of the house, leaking toilet and bathtub, and humidity—contributed to the damage to the house, along with poor construction, termite damage and decay. The insurer denied coverage citing multiple policy exclusions, including damage caused by seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system; deterioration; mold, wet or dry rot; settling of foundations, walls or floors; earth movement; water damage; neglect; weather conditions; acts or decisions of any person; and faulty or defective design, workmanship, repair, construction, or maintenance. The insured retained a public adjuster who disagreed, in particular citing the policy’s “Other Coverage 9” coverage for collapse of a building or part of a building “caused only by one or more” of a list of perils, including hidden decay, hidden insect damage, and weight of contents, equipment, or people. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of
  

  ---

  Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

  December 31, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
  A recent lawsuit filed in California over the proper documentation necessary for LEED certification (discussed in detail at the Green Building Law Update) emphasizes the fact that, no matter how detailed the LEED certification process seems to be, a mere reference to that process or a certain level of LEED certification is far from sufficient to assure a smooth project. While I don’t practice in California and don’t have any idea how the lawsuit will turn out, the fact that there is litigation over even the basics of LEED like documentation shows the clear necessity to make sure that your specifications and contract documents are specific and clear from the beginning. Owners, General Contractors and Subcontractors need to remember this fact at all times and particularly in situations where, like in the instance of LEED, the “specification” seems to be set out by others. Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
  Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

  ---

  Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

  July 13, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
  Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown. An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:

  In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.

  U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).

  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

  ---