FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

September 17, 2014 — Brian K. Sullivan – Bloomberg
A week ago, Hurricane Norbert pumped tropical moisture across the U.S. Southwest, touching off record rainfall in Phoenix and Tucson that killed at least two people, flooded hundreds of homes and shut highways throughout the region. This week, Hurricane Odile moved onto the Baja California peninsula after becoming the strongest system since 1967 to hit that part of Mexico, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said. While it isn’t time to get the rowboat out again for the morning commute, the earth in the desert Southwest doesn’t absorb water very well, the way a Florida swamp or Louisiana bayou might. A lot of rain can be far more unpredictable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian K. Sullivan, Bloomberg
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at bsullivan10@bloomberg.net

---

Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

October 10, 2013 — Derek Lindenschmidt — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
On February 28, 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion with regard to the ability of an owner (and in this case, a real estate investment owner) to withdraw and de-annex lots from a common interest community. Specifically, in Vista Ridge Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Arcadia Holdings at Vista Ridge, LLC, 300 P.3d 1004 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court denied Arcadia’s appeal of a lower Colorado District Court ruling which invalidated Arcadia’s attempt to withdraw and de-annex 70 single-family lots which it owned from the 94-lot Vista Ridge Filing No. 9. The applicable Declaration reserved the right to withdraw or de-annex any portion of the community in accordance with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA), and further limited such right to the extent that “no portion of the Property may be withdrawn or de-annexed after a Lot or Unit in that portion of the Property has been conveyed to an Owner other than a Declarant or a Builder.” The decision ultimately turned on the meaning of a “portion” of the property, as intended by CCIOA, and as applied to the specific language in the Vista Ridge Declaration. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lindenschmidt
Derek Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

---

LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

June 06, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

Apparently, Courthouse Square is still unresolved. The County hasnow hired an attorney to handle its insurance claim against Affiliated FM. Is there a lawsuit coming?



Right now, no lawsuit is expected. According to officials, the insurer has been acting in good faith. But, its been quite a while since Salem officials learned that the Courthouse Square building had significant concrete issues that would result in probable demolition of the LEED certified building.



If you have yet to hear about Courthouse Square, let me fill you in briefly. The Salem building was substantially completed in 2000 and LEED certified by the US Green Building Council in 2002. The project cost more than $30 Million to complete and the building was revered for its innovation as a crowning achievement for city leaders.



But, structural problems in the building’s core were discovered as early as 2002, writes Chris Cheatham of Green Building Law Update. Final tests earlier in the year, determined that the building had to be vacated. The building has been clear since July 2010.



Read the full story…

 

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

---

Don’t Ignore a Notice of Contest of Lien

April 29, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case, Jon M. Hall Company, LLC v. Canoe Creek Investments, LLC, 49 Fla.L.Weekly D812a (Fla. 2d DCA 2024), demonstrates four important things when it comes to liens:

1. An owner can shorten the time period to foreclose on the lien, whether against the real property or a lien transfer bond, to 60 days by recording a notice of contest of lien;
2. An owner can transfer a lien to a lien transfer bond during litigation;
3. An owner can record a notice of contest of lien to force the lienor to amend its lawsuit to sue the lien transfer bond surety within 60 days; and
4. A contractors’ failure to amend its lawsuit to sue the lien transfer bond within 60 days will extinguish its rights to pursue a claim against the lien transfer bond, and will otherwise extinguish the lien, fairly or unfairly.

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

---

Million-Dollar Home Sales Thrive While Low End Stumbles

May 05, 2014 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
Million-dollar homes in the U.S. are selling at double their historical average while middle-class property demand stumbles, showing that the housing recovery is mirroring America’s wealth divide. Purchases costing $1 million or more rose 7.8 percent in March from a year earlier, according to data released last week by the National Association of Realtors. Transactions for $250,000 or less, which represent almost two-thirds of the market, plunged 12 percent in the period as house hunters found few available homes in that price range. Luxury-home sales are climbing as an improving economy and stocks that have almost tripled from 2009 lows bolster confidence among affluent buyers. At the same time, slow wage growth, tight credit standards and escalating prices are putting homeownership out of reach for many Americans. While investors drain the market of lower-end properties, builders are constructing more expensive houses that generate bigger profits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

---

Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

November 23, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Recently, I read an informative article from another attorney addressing considerations of an owner when it receives a repair protocol in response to a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of defect letter. This is a well-written article and raises two important issues applicable to construction defect disputes: 1) how is an owner supposed to respond to a repair protocol submitted by a contractor in accordance with Florida’s 558 notice of construction defects procedure and 2) irrespective of Florida’s 558 procedure, how is an owner supposed to treat a contractual notice to cure / notice of defect requirement that requires the owner to give the contractor a notice to cure a defect. This article raises such pertinent points that I wanted to address the issues and topics raised in this article. 558 Procedure–Owner’s Receipt of Contractor’s Repair Protocol When a contractor submits a repair protocol to an owner in response to a notice of construction defects letter per Florida Statutes Chapter 558, the owner should seriously consider that protocol. The owner does this by discussing with counsel and any retained expert. The owner needs to know whether the protocol is a reasonable, cost-effective protocol to repair the asserted defects or, alternatively, whether the protocol is merely a band-aid approach and/or otherwise insufficiently addresses the claimed defects. Every scenario is different. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

---

Texas Supreme Court Holds that Invoking Appraisal Provision and Paying Appraisal Amount Does Not Insulate an Insurer from Damages Under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act

September 16, 2019 — John C. Eichman & Grayson L. Linyard - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In two cases decided June 28, 2019, the Texas Supreme Court held that an insurer’s invocation of a contractual appraisal provision after denying a claim does not as a matter of law insulate it from liability under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (“TPPCA”). But, on the other hand, the court also held that the insurer’s payment of the appraisal award does not as a matter of law establish its liability under the policy for purposes of TPPCA damages. In Barbara Techs. Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 17-0640, 2019 WL 2666484, at *1 (Tex. June 28, 2019), State Farm Lloyds issued property insurance to Barbara Technologies Corporation for a commercial property. A wind and hail storm damaged the property, and Barbara Tech filed a claim under the policy. State Farm denied the claim, asserting that damages were less than the $5,000 deductible. Barbara Tech filed suit against State Farm, including for violation of the TPPCA. Six months later, State Farm invoked the appraisal provision of the policy. More than a year after the suit was filed, appraisers agreed to a value of $195,345.63. State Farm then paid that amount, minus depreciation and the deductible. Barbara Tech amended its petition to include only TPPCA claims. Reprinted courtesy of John C. Eichman, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Grayson L. Linyard, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Eichman may be contacted at jeichman@HuntonAK.com Mr. Linyard may be contacted at glinyard@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

April 20, 2020 — J. Kelby Van Patten - Payne & Fears
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court held that, when one primary policy exhausts in a continuing injury claim, the excess insurer sitting above that policy must drop down and provide coverage for the entire claim (up to its policy limits), even if primary policies in other years remain unexhausted. Montrose was sued for environmental contamination between 1947 and 1982. In many years, Montrose had primary insurance as well as multiple layers of excess coverage. Montrose’s excess insurers argued for a “horizontal exhaustion” rule, which would have required that all implicated primary policies exhaust before any excess insurers provide coverage. The California Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments and found that Montrose was entitled to coverage from an excess insurer once the specific primary policy sitting below that insurer was exhausted. The Supreme Court also confirmed that, under California’s “all sums” rule, each excess insurer must provide coverage for the entire amount of the loss (up to its policy limits). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & Fears
Mr. Van Patten may be contacted at kvp@paynefears.com

---