Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

August 24, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed how fraud and contracts are often like oil and water. While there are exceptions, these exceptions are few and far between here in Virginia. The reason for the lack of a mix between these two types of claims is the so-called “source of duty” rule. The gist of this rule is that where the reason money is owed from one party to another (the source of the “duty to pay”) is based in the contract, Virginia courts will not allow a fraud claim. The rule was created so that all breaches of contract, claims that are at base a failure to fulfill a prior promise and could, therefore, be considered to be based on a prior “lie,” would not be expanded to turn into tort claims. This rule has been extended to claims that most average people (read, non-lawyers) would consider fraud because there was no intent to fulfill the contract at the time it was signed. Just so you don’t think that lawyers are exempt from this legal analysis, I point you to a recent case where a law firm sued a construction client of theirs for failure to pay legal fees. In EvansStarrett PLC v. Goode & Preferred General Contracting, the Fairfax County Circuit Court considered a motion by the Plaintiff law firm seeking to add a count of fraud to its breach of contract lawsuit. The Court considered the following facts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

October 02, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In an earlier article, I discussed an owner’s measure of damages when a contractor breaches the construction contract. This article discussed a case where the contractor elected to walk off a residential renovation job due to a payment dispute when he demanded more money and the owners did not bite. This case also discussed the commonly asserted defense known as mitigation of damages, i.e., the other party failed to properly mitigate their own damages. In the breach of contract setting, mitigation of damages refers to those damages the other side could have reasonably avoided had he undertaken certain (reasonable) measures. This is known as the doctrine of avoidable consequences. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

A Tort, By Any Other Name, is Just a Tort: Massachusetts Court Bars Contract Claims That Sound in Negligence

March 20, 2023 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In University of Massachusetts Building Authority v. Adams Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2023 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 28, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1107, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts (Appeals Court) considered whether the lower court properly held that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were time-barred by the statute of repose because they sounded in tort. The Appeals Court held that while the six-year statute of repose only applies to tort claims, they can also bar claims for breach of contract and indemnification if they sound in tort. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were just negligence claims disguised as non-tort claims. In 2013 and 2014, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) retained various contractors to renovate the dining hall for one of its campus buildings, which included the installation of new ductwork for the kitchen’s exhaust system. The dining hall opened for service in September 2014. In the Spring of 2018, it was discovered that the ductwork for the kitchen had collapsed. Further investigation revealed other deficiencies with the exhaust system. On December 1, 2020, UMass filed a lawsuit against various contractors, asserting negligence, breach of contract, and indemnification. The breach of contract claims alleged breach of express warranties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Break out the Neon: ‘80s Era Davis-Bacon “Prevailing Wage” Definition Restored in DOL Final Rule

August 21, 2023 — A. Scott Hecker & Ted North - The Construction Seyt
On August 8, 2023, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced its final rule related to the Davis-Bacon Act (the “Act”), entitled “Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations.” However, the official final rule must be published in the Federal Register – likely by week’s end – before going into effect 60 days after publication. DOL issued its notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) in March 2022 and received more than 40,000 comments from interested stakeholders. Evaluating and addressing those comments took the better part of a year, as DOL did not send the rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) for White House approval until December 16, 2022. After languishing for months, OIRA has now concluded its review, allowing DOL to move forward with its final rule. Reprinted courtesy of A. Scott Hecker, Seyfarth and Ted North, Seyfarth Mr. Hecker may be contacted at shecker@seyfarth.com Mr. North may be contacted at enorth@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Poor Record Keeping = Going to the Poor House (or, why project documentation matters)

June 11, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
You are an engineer or architect. You understand the importance of thorough designs. What about thorough documentation of the daily happenings on the construction project? That is equally important. As regular readers of this blog know, I have often spoken of the importance of proper record keeping on construction projects. In fact, lack of good project records is one of the 7 mistakes in my white paper 7 Critical Mistakes that Engineers & Architects make During Project Negotiation and Execution that Sabotage their Projects & Invite Litigation. Now, a construction management expert, who, like me, sees the ugly when construction projects turn bad, has weighed in with perhaps the authoritative reasoning and rationale (pdf) for good project records. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Wheaton to Require Sprinklers in New Homes

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The town of Wheaton, Illinois is considering a change to its building codes, based on the recommendations made in the 2012 building code, released by the International Code Council. Eighty-two towns in Illinois already require new homes to have fire sprinklers. Wheaton did not adopt any changes from the 2006 or 2009 building code; they are currently using the standards of the 2003 edition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Fund Approved for Bankrupt Las Vegas Builder

February 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal bankruptcy judge has given his approval to a fund set up to settle potential construction defect claims as a Las Vegas home builder, America West Development, works its way out of bankruptcy. The U.S. Trustee had objected to the trust fund's structure, and claimed that it was insufficiently independent from America West. Judge Mike Nakagawa found no legal objections to the trust. The trust will be initially funded from $1.5 million of the $10 million that Lawrence Canarelli will be paying to buy back the company he founded. Construction defect claims against the company could possibly reach $20.9 million. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the fund "could pick up funding from certain legal claims and insurance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

January 27, 2020 — Ted R. Gropman & Christine Z. Fan - ConsensusDocs
Construction contracts often include a “no damage for delay” clause that denies a contractor the right to recover delay-related costs and limits the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time for noncontractor-caused delays to a project’s completion date. Depending on the nature of the delay and the jurisdiction where the project is located, the contractual prohibition against delay damages may well be enforceable. This article will explore whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date. Courts are split as to whether damages for a contractor’s “acceleration” efforts are distinguishable from “delay” damages such that they may be recovered under an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause. See, e.g., Siefford v. Hous. Auth. of Humboldt, 223 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 1974) (disallowing the recovery of acceleration damages under a no-damage-for-delay clause); but see Watson Elec. Constr. Co. v. Winston-Salem, 109 N.C. App. 194 (1993) (allowing the recovery of acceleration damages despite a no-damage-for-delay clause). The scope and effect of a no-damage-for-delay clause depend on the specific laws of the jurisdiction and the factual circumstances involved. There are a few ways for a contractor to circumvent an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause to recover acceleration damages. First, the contractor may invoke one of the state’s enumerated exceptions to the enforceability of the clause. It is helpful to keep in mind that most jurisdictions strictly construe a no-damage-for-delay clause to limit its application. This means that, regardless of delay or acceleration, courts will nonetheless permit the contractor to recover damages if the delay is, for example, of a kind not contemplated by the parties, due to an unreasonable delay, or a result of the owner’s fraud, bad faith, gross negligence, active interference or abandonment of the contract. See Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155, 160 (Colo. App. 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. Mo. P. R. Co., 668 F.2d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 1982); Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Iowa S. Utils. Co., 355 F. Supp. 376, 396 (S.D. Iowa 1973). Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Christine Z. Fan, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at gropmant@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES