Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls

January 03, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Recently, I’ve been on an “advising” kick here at Construction Law Musings. My last two posts have been about communication and trusting your gut when it comes to a smooth construction project. This post will be the third in the trilogy (and who knows maybe I’ll have a 4th and 5th like the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy “trilogy”). While all construction contractors should use their communication skills and instincts to assure a smooth and hopefully profitable project, all of the gut following and great communication will not help you if your contract is not up to snuff. In the spirit of giving you a few basics things to look at, here’s my list of three basics that you need in your contract and a three things to be on the lookout for in others’ contracts. First, the good stuff that needs to be there:

Attorney Fees Clause– without it, a Virginia court (and most other courts) will not award you a judgment for any attorney fees spent to protect your rights.
Dispute Resolution– whether the specified resolution is through the litigation process, ADR or some combination, such a clause or paragraph will only help define the parameters of what happens with a claim.
Detailed scope of work– Without the proper detail in the scope of work, the parties cannot properly set expectations and know what happens when things change.

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

Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite

June 08, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed the impactful legislation to the Virginia construction industry in prior posts here at Construction Law Musings. One of those statutes that will take effect on July 1, 2020 will fundamentally change the relationships between general contractors and their subcontractors and suppliers. Senate Bill 838 does the following on construction projects with a value of $500,000 or greater that are not single family residential construction projects:

Makes the general contractor, and all tiers of subcontractors on a particular project contractually liable to pay their subcontractors’ (at any tier) employees wages.
Requires that the payments are equal or exceed those required by other statutes.
Deems contractors to be the employers of their subcontractors’ employees for purposes of Va. Code Section 40.1-29 that imposes criminal and civil penalties for failure to pay wages when due, and
Grants employees a private right of action for any violations, including the right to a class or joint action, award of liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and possible treble damages for “knowing” violations by the contractor.

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

Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice

April 25, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Generally, I think restraint in litigation is a good thing. Don’t go crazy on your claims, don’t go nut-so in your discovery, and don’t present your case at trial in a way that causes the judge and/or jury to raise their eyebrows or shake their heads in disbelief. But, as with nearly everything, there’s always an exception. One of which is: don’t hold back on a claim because you “think” you might be able to bring it later, because you might not be able to as the next case, 5th and LA v. Western Waterproofing Company, Inc., 87 Cal.App.5th 781 (2023), demonstrates. The 5th and LA Case At the outset, let me first say how much I enjoyed reading this case based on the writing alone. The case, as the 2nd District Court of Appeals states, involves “a second lawsuit about an increasingly leaky roof.” In 2012, property owner 5th and LA hired roofing contractor Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. to remove and recoat a parking lot that served also served as the roof over retail and office space below. Western completed its work in July 2012 and almost immediately 5th and LA noticed water that the coating was failing causing water leaks to the interior of the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

March 23, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Truck Ins. Exchange v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., No. 03-08-00526-CV (Tex. App. 3d Aug. 27, 2010), insured contractor DCI was sued by the project owner seeking damages for defective construction. DCI tendered its defense to its CGL insurers Truck and Mid-Continent. Truck agreed to defend while Mid-Continent denied a defense. While the underlying suit was pending, Mid-Continent sued DCI, but not Truck, and obtained a judicial declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify DCI in the underlying suit. After settling the underlying suit, Truck sued Mid-Continent seeking contribution towards defense costs and indemnity payments. The state trial court entered summary judgment for Mid-Continent. The intermediate appellate court affirmed.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

No Coverage for Sink Hole Loss

June 18, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found there was no coverage under the commercial property policy for loss suffered by the insured condominium association due to a sink hole. Bahama Bay II Condo. Ass'n. v. Untied Nat'l Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67487 (M.D. Fla. April 11, 2019). The plaintiff condominium association had thirteen buildings inside their complex. On December 9, 2016, a sinkhole appeared near Building 43. The building was vacated and declared unsafe. Plaintiff's board excused Building 43 owners from paying association dues. Plaintiff submitted a claim to the insurer for benefits under the policy. The insurer inspected and accepted coverage for Building 43 under the policy's Catastrophic Ground Cover Collapse (CGCC) provision and issued a check for $290,000 for immediate repairs. The insurer denied coverage for Buildings 42, 44, and 45; repairs to the foundation of all buildings, the retaining wall and outdoor fences; land, landscaping, and patios, uncollected association dues, and condominium unit owner property. 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

Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance

December 27, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
It is a good idea to know what your insurance covers and does not cover. This way, if your course of business has you performing a certain (risky) operation, you know whether that operation is covered or excluded under your policy. If you are not sure, discuss with your insurance broker — this is important. There is little value performing an operation that is NOT covered by your insurance policy, as you are now performing a risk that is not covered by insurance. If you know it is not covered by insurance you may elect to change your operations or see if there is insurance to cover the risk. Below is a case study of this occurrence dealing with a commercial automobile liability policy where an insured’s operations using a crane mounted to a super duty truck was not covered under their automobile liability policy. In People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D262a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), homeowners hired a company to install a shed. The company hired another company to deliver and install the shed using a crane; the company used a crane mounted to a Ford F-750 super duty truck. This company improperly operated the crane resulting in the shed falling and damaging the homeowner’s roof. The homeowners submitted a claim to their property insurer and their property insurer subrogated to their rights and sued. The company operating the crane’s commercial automobile liability insurer denied coverage, and thus, denied the duty to defend. As a result, a Coblentz-type agreement was entered into where the company operating the crane consented to a judgment in favor of the property insurer (subrogee) and assigned its rights under its commercial automobile liability policy to the property insurer. The property insurer then sued the automobile liability carrier for coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the automobile liability insurer finding there was no coverage and this was affirmed on appeal. Why? 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

VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

February 23, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
The proper classification of workers by construction companies has been on the radar of the Department of Labor for both the US and Virginia governments for quite a while. While most of the misclassification is innocent and not done to create issues, there have been enough instances of purposeful misclassification of certain workers as independent contractors (thus avoiding workers comp and other payroll expenses) that innocent contractors have born the brunt of these issues through increased payroll costs over those that misclassify (in the form of necessarily higher bids, higher overhead, etc.). As an additional deterrent to improper classification of workers, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry has issued guidelines for what will occur in Virginia Department of Safety and Health (VOSH) cases. 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

Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

April 27, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Evanston Ins. Co. v. D&L Masonry of Lubbock, Inc., No. 07-10-00358-CV (Tex. Ct. App. April 18, 2011), insured masonry subcontractor D&L sued its CGL insurer Evanston to recover costs incurred by D&L for the replacement of window frames damaged by D&L while performing masonry work adjacent to the window frames. The trial court granted summary judgment for D&L.

Read the full story…