Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

April 11, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
A friend came to me with a question regarding a case he was working: “can a public owner require that bidders use a specific brand name product?” “Of course not,” I said “proprietary specifications are illegal.” Or, at least that’s what I assumed. To my surprise, the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not as clear as it is in other jurisdictions. What is a proprietary specification? A proprietary specification lists a product by brand name, make, model and/model that a contractor must (shall) utilize in construction. A basic example of a proprietary specification would state:

“Air Handlers shall be “Turbo Max” as manufactured by Chiller Corp.”

There are two problems with a proprietary specification (other than potentially being illegal): (a) they limit competition, and (b) invite steered contract awards. They limit competition because it limits the type of material that can be used on the project. In the example above, there could be equivalent air handlers available at a better price but the contractor could not use that lower priced product in its bid. Thus, the taxpayers end up paying more for tile. Also, contractors may not be able to secure a certain brand name product because of exclusive distribution agreements. Again, using the example above, contractor A’s competitor may have the exclusive distribution agreement with Chiller Corp. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Avoiding Construction Defect “Nightmares” in Florida

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Describing it as a “nightmare,” Larry Tolchinsky writes about construction defects at the Willowbrook condominium complex in Florida. Writing on the website of his firm, Sackrin & Tolchinsky, Mr. Tolchinsky gives the history of the Willowbrook condo case, in which condo owners suffered problems with water intrusion and subsequent damage to their units. The builder has agreed to make repairs, though they are still suing owners who put up a website critical of the company. Mr. Tolchinsky notes that this is not “the usual way things happen in construction defect lawsuits,” and he gives the usual process. Under Florida law, homeowners must first notify those responsible of a “problem and its need for repair.” After this notice, the homeowner “will know within about 6 weeks’ time after sending that formal notice what the contractor’s position is going to be on things.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

April 17, 2019 — Tiffany Casanova - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Fifth Circuit ruled that settlements between an insured and its subcontractors qualified as “other insurance” to the extent those settlements were used to pay for damages covered by an excess insurance policy. Policyholders should note the outcome of this case as it demonstrates the significant impact that settlements can have on coverage. Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. v. Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co.1 was the result of a construction project gone wrong. Zapata County, Texas hired Satterfield & Pontikes (“S&P”) as a general contractor for the construction of a courthouse building. When the project did not go as planned, Zapata County terminated S&P, hired new subcontractors to complete the project, and sued S&P. S&P, in turn, sought indemnification from its subcontractors, who were contractually obligated to indemnify S&P and procure insurance for any damage the subcontractors caused at the project. S&P also sought coverage from its own primary insurers, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“AGLIC”) and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”), and its excess insurer, U.S. Fire Insurance Company (“U.S. Fire”) who provided liability coverage for S&P’s potential liabilities at the project. The policies contained exclusions for losses arising from mold and did not provide coverage for attorney’s fees or similar legal costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

June 03, 2019 — Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In reversing summary judgment for defendants, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that homeowners suing their real estate broker for negligence did not need an expert witness to establish the elements of their causes of action. Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal. App. 5th 637. Typically, expert witnesses are required to establish the standard of care in professional negligence cases. But in Ryan, the court of appeal held that the “common knowledge” exception applied despite this general rule, because the conduct required by the particular circumstance of the case was within the common knowledge of a layman. The conduct in question here? The broker’s failure to disclose to his client that the client’s neighbor told him that she planned extensive renovations that would obstruct the client’s property’s ocean views. Ryan and Patricia Ryan (the Ryans) hired defendant Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., doing business as Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty (Sotheby’s) and defendant real estate broker to sell their residence in La Jolla, California. During an open house at the residence, a neighbor informed the Ryan’s real estate broker that she planned extensive renovations at her home that would, among other things, permanently obstruct the Ryan’s westerly ocean views and take several years to complete. The real estate broker never informed the Ryans of this, nor the subsequent buyer. The subsequent buyer purchased the property for $3.86 million, and defendants received $96,500 as commission for the sale. The day after escrow closed, the buyers learned of the renovations, and sought to rescind the purchase. Based on advice of defendants, the Ryans refused, and the dispute proceeded to arbitration. The buyer obtained a rescission of the purchase, with the Ryans order to pay damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $1 million. The Ryans then sued Sotheby’s and the real estate broker to recover these amounts and damages caused by defendants’ alleged negligence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

March 04, 2019 — Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
The implied warranty of habitability allows a homeowner to recover damages for latent defects that interfere with the intended use of a home. In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, 2018 Ill. LEXIS 1244 (2018), the Supreme Court of Illinois held that buyers of new homes cannot assert claims for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against subcontractors involved in the construction of the homes because the subcontractors have no contractual relationship with the homeowners and the damages are purely economic. As the court explained, the implied warranty of habitability is a creature of contract (not tort) and, therefore, only exists when there is contractual privity between the defendants and the homeowners. In Sienna, a group of condominium unit owners alleged that their new homes contained latent construction defects and asserted claims against the various parties involved in the construction and sale of the homes, including claims against the defendant subcontractors for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The plaintiffs contracted with the property developer to purchase the homes, but the plaintiffs had no contractual relationship with the subcontractors involved in the construction of the homes. The Sienna court, overturning the decisions of the trial court and the appellate court, granted the subcontractors’ joint motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for the implied warranty of habitability because the plaintiffs had no contractual relationship with the subcontractors and the damages were purely economic. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough

June 29, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed why contractors need to incorporate previously here at Construction Law Musings. Among the many reasons to incorporate are possible tax benefits and the protection of personal assets (like your house and your dog) from judgement and collection actions. This latter reason is key in the construction world in which Murphy can look like an optimist and projects have so many moving parts that something is likely to go wrong. The reason incorporation works as at least a partial shield is that the company and the owners are separate “people” or entities from a legal perspective and a contract with one “person” cannot be enforced against another. This same logic applies in the context of corporate versus individual actions, i. e. the actions of one person cannot be legally attributed to another person. By extension the assets of an individual cannot be collected to satisfy a purely corporate debt or judgment. 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

Questions of Fact Regarding Collapse of Basement Walls Prevent Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

December 19, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on whether the policy covered the collapse of basement walls based upon factual issues presented. Sirois v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158508 (D. Conn. Sept. 18, 2018). The insureds' purchased their home in 2010. In December 2015, a crack in the basement wall was noticed. It was not thought to be a serious problem. But in 2016, the insured read an article about defective concrete problems affecting homeowners in Connecticut. An inspector, Dean Soucy, was hired. He found faults and cracks in the foundation walls. Thereafter, a claim was submitted to USAA under homeowners' policies issued over the years to the insureds. USAA denied coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

July 23, 2014 — Sonja Elmquist – Bloomberg
In March 2013, Mario Longhi lobbed an unexpected question into a roomful of 150 U.S. Steel Corp. managers: Who here would buy the company’s stock, tomorrow? He gave them three seconds, and “only a few reacted in that time frame positively,” Longhi said. Since that meeting, Longhi has been promoted to chief executive officer, and nine months into his tenure he’s closed one plant permanently, two more are temporarily idled and he’s planning to overhaul another. It’s all part of his plan to transform the 144-year-old company into a lean, modern steel producer. Investors are taking note, with the shares up 53 percent since he took over. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sonja Elmquist, Bloomberg
Ms. Elmquist may be contacted at selmquist1@bloomberg.net

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES