Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Buy American Under President Trump: What to Know and Where We’re Heading

August 20, 2019 — Jamie Oberg - ConsensusDocs
On January 31, 2019, President Trump signed an Executive Order on Strengthening Buy-American Preferences for Infrastructure Projects, placing continued emphasis on the importance of “the use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States.” This order builds upon the President’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order, which he issued in April of 2017. The 2017 Order increased enforcement of standing Buy American laws and called for federal agencies to explore new possibilities regarding domestic preferences. In part, the 2017 Order required every agency to “scrupulously monitor, enforce, and comply with Buy American laws,” and to minimize the use of waivers of these laws. The 2019 Order instructs federal agencies to develop rules to encourage contractors to comply with these preferences to the maximum extent practicable in any infrastructure project that receives any indirect federal government assistance. This includes recipients of loans, loan guarantees, grants, insurance subsidies or other forms of financing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jamie Oberg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Oberg may be contacted at joberg@pecklaw.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tender Is the Fight”

August 21, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A performance bond surety for a defaulted general contractor principal found itself with a recalcitrant owner which refused to accept the tender of a replacement general contractor to complete a $3,000,000 construction project in Monmouth County, New Jersey. Even before the original GC was off the job, the surety – having been notified of the contractor’s difficulties in performing the work – stepped in promptly, providing assistance in the form of an additional contractor. At the surety’s behest, that additional contractor remained on the project (focused principally at the time on roof repairs) after the initial GC was placed in default and terminated. Eventually, the surety, by draft tender agreement issued to the owner, offered that the additional contractor serve as the completion contractor for the entire project (not simply the roof repairs), a proposal rejected by the owner – which had never cared for the additional contractor. Instead, the owner proposed its own completion contractor and, in connection with that offer, demanded a sum of money ($1.6 million) from the surety – a proposal the surety rejected: “[Owner] cannot choose whatever contractor it wants to complete the work and then charge the costs to [the surety]." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage

January 06, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured failed to present any argument for excess coverage after the insolvency of the primary carrier. Canal Ins. Co. v. Montello, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20625 (10th Cir. Nov. 27, 2015). Montello distributed an oil drill containing asbestos between 1966 and 1985. Montello was sued by individuals claiming injuries due to exposure to the asbestos. Montello was insured by The Home Insurance Company from March 1975 to March 1984. In 2003, Home was declared insolvent. Home did not pay any claims for bodily injury on Montello's behalf. 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

A General Contractors Guide to Bond Thresholds by State

June 13, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Author: Eric Weisbrot is the Chief Marketing Officer of JW Surety Bonds. With years of experience in the surety industry under several different roles within the company, he is also a contributing author to the surety bond blog. For general contractors in construction, there are many facets of business management that must be considered and then accomplished over time. Operating a successful general contractor business regardless of size or niche requires an understanding of bookkeeping, personnel management, regulatory compliance, as well as revenue potential for each project. However, one often overlooked aspect of being a general contractor – having the appropriate contractor license and minimum surety bond – correlates to each of these required fragments of the business from the start. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

"My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

February 23, 2016 — David A. Harris & Jesse M. Sullivan – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Retention clauses are almost always included in California construction contracts and permit an Owner to withhold a portion of what is owed to the General Contractor as security to ensure the proper completion of the work. General Contractors pass the withholding of retention down to the subcontractors. Thus, if the subcontractor fails to complete its work, or fails to correct deficiencies, the Owner/General Contractor can use the retention to pay the costs of completing or correcting the subcontractor’s work. The contractor must release any retention it receives from the owner within ten days unless a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and the subcontractor.” (Civil Code section 8814.) Where there is a good faith dispute, the contractor “may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” (Civil Code section 8814(c).) If the contractor wrongfully withholds retention, it must not only pay the retention but must also pay the subcontractor “a penalty of 2 percent per month on the amount wrongfully withheld.” The contractor must also pay the subcontractor’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in collecting the retention. (Civil Code section 8818.) Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

April 17, 2019 — Ian Williamson - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
In response to a tragic balcony collapse incident where the public later learned the contractor had paid millions to settlement defect cases in the preceding years, the California legislature passed, the state contractor’s license board is now implementing, a public disclosure requirement for certain construction defect claims. The disclosure requirement is triggered by a judgment (which is not a new requirement), an arbitration award, or a settlement of certain construction defect claims. These requirements are codified at California Business & Professions Code sections 7071.20-22. What types of Projects: This requirement applies only if all of the following apply:

A) Residential B) Multi-Family; and C) Rental property

Limitations on Claims – The reporting requirement only applies if all of the following are true:

A) The claim is against a CSLB licensee (not a design professional) acting in the capacity of a contractor; B) The claim is for a structural defect; C) The total claim is valued at $1 million (not including investigation costs); D) SB800 does not apply; E) The action was filed after January 1, 2019; and F) If a lawsuit, the case was designated complex by the courts (which may not apply if only contractor is sued).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ian Williamson, Gordon & Rees
Mr. Williamson may be contacted at igwilliamson@grsm.com

Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

June 02, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a prior article, I discussed the point that a personal guarantor cannot escape a contractual requirement of a personal guarantee merely by executing the guarantee as a corporate officer. The recent decision Frieri v. Capital Investment Services, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1189a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) illustrates this point. In this case, a company hired an individual to help grow that company’s business. The contract required the individual to invest $6 Million into a trust in consideration of the company’s president transferring substantial shares of the company into the trust. The objective was that the trust would own the controlling shares of the company. The money was transferred. However, the shares were never placed in the trust and the trust never received controlling interest in the company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

July 31, 2023 — PFAS Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
From a stream of legal challenges, to ever-expanding regulations on things like cosmetics and drinking water, PFAS are the “forever chemicals” keeping companies and consumers on high alert. While industries scramble to remove the synthetic compounds from products, scientists are researching new techniques for scrubbing PFAS from the environment. There is money to be had for those who can find a more streamlined method of purging the substances—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has an $800 million contract on the table for the handling, destruction and replacement of PFAS-laden fire-fighting foam—leaving technology companies racing to create solutions. The three main PFAS cleaning techniques currently relied upon can be very effective but are also costly and may leave questionable byproducts in their wake. The established approaches include:

Granular Activated Carbon. As one of the most studied treatments for PFAS removal, granular activated carbon is often used in water treatment plants. Large beds of carbon essentially soak up the unwanted chemicals. After the Sweeney Water Plant in North Carolina, whose water source is downstream from a fluorochemical-producing Chemours plant, was found to be contaminated with PFAS, the plant invested around $46 million into upgraded activated carbon systems. Once installed, these systems cost roughly $2.9 million to operate yearly, as the carbon needs to be replaced each time it reaches capacity. Though pricey, the plant says that the process now clears close to 100% of PFAS.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of PFAS Team, Pillsbury

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES