Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

June 11, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court determined the excess carrier's declaratory judgment action to establish it had no coverage obligations should be stayed while the underlying case was still pending. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Ortiz & Assocs., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64286 (D. Ore. May 9, 2014). The subcontractor's employee was killed on the job site when struck by a dump truck owned by the general contractor, Inland Asphalt Co. Island was sued for wrongful death. Island was an additional insured under the subcontractor's primary policy and excess policy with Scottsdale. Inland put Scottsdale on notice of the underlying wrongful death lawsuit, but did not tender its defense to Scottsdale. 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

Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

September 17, 2015 — John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
California’s already tight housing market is facing another long-term complication: drought. The state’s dry spell is creating challenges for developers at a time when home prices are soaring because of limited inventory. The metropolitan areas of San Jose, San Francisco and San Diego had the nation’s biggest gap between the number of new jobs and residential building permits from 2012 to 2014, according to a report Wednesday by the National Association of Realtors. Now the drought, into its fourth year, stands to curb affordability further. “It’s contributing to price appreciation by restricting supply,” said Mark Boud, founder of Real Estate Economics, a housing-consulting firm based in Irvine, California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg

No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

October 18, 2021 — Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Introduction: Under a no-damage-for-delay clause, the owner is not liable for any monetary damages resulting from delays on the project. In lieu of monetary recovery, the contractor’s remaining remedy is a non-compensatory time extension. These clauses are common at the contractor-subcontractor interface as well. While no-damage-for-delay clauses are enforced in most jurisdictions, some states, either by statute or case law, have limited the enforceability of no-damage-for-delay clauses. Other states have also limited the enforceability of these clauses on state government contracts, and a select few have outlawed them on all projects regardless if they are publicly or privately owned. Additionally, for subcontractors on federal projects, the Miller Act may provide a way to avoid no-damage-for-delay and recover against the general contractor’s payment bond. This article provides an overview of no-damage-for-delay clauses and the exceptions to enforcement of these clauses. However, due to the consequences of a no-damage-for-delay clause, it is important to know the terms of your contract and the law that governs your project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com

Don’t Miss the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

April 01, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The 22nd West Coast Casualty (WCC) Construction Defect Seminar returning to the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California is just six weeks away. The annual event begins on Thursday, May 14th, with breakfast and registration starting at 7:30am. Panel discussions on various construction defect related topics begin at 8:30am and continue through the morning and afternoon, followed by a cocktail reception in the early evening. The following day includes break-out sessions with the event concluding in the afternoon. Attendees can enhance their seminar experience with the WCC Construction Defect Seminar Mobile App. The event schedule, speaker information, product information, sponsor details, and interactive floorplan can all be accessed through the app. Furthermore, registered attendees will have access to session presentations. The discounted, early registration ends April 15th, 2015. Download an Invitation and Register for the Event... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Breach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act Claim

March 27, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An interesting opinion on a motion to dismiss came out of the United States Court of Federal Claims dealing with the claim that the government breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing in administering the prime contract. The contractor’s argument was that the government breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying the contractor’s claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). This was a creative claim and argument that deserves consideration because it tied in the contracting officer’s denial of the CDA claim for additional money with a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In this case, Aries Construction Corp. v. U.S., 2023 WL 2146598 (Fed. Cl. 2023), a prime contractor was hired for a water pipeline construction project. The contractor encountered unexpected difficult site conditions that required additional equipment and labor. The contractor informed the contracting officer and alleged it was instructed to proceed with the additional equipment and labor. The contractor submitted a claim under the CDA but the contracting officer denied the claim. The contractor pursued the claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims arguing the government breached the contract and, of interest, breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The government moved to dismiss the breach of good faith and fair dealing claim arguing that besides failing to state a cause of action the Court of Federal Claims had no jurisdiction because the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing was not properly presented to the contracting officer under the CDA. The Court of Federal Claims denied the government’s motion. 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

Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
An issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation. Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions. Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

What Construction Firm Employers Should Do Right Now to Minimize Legal Risk of Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuits

October 07, 2024 — Anthony LaPlaca, Dawn Solowey, Andrew Scroggins & Adrienne Lee
Seyfarth Synopsis: In June 2024, Seyfarth published a blog article warning construction industry employers of recent anti-harassment guidelines issued by the EEOC. We predicted that the EEOC has “put the construction industry squarely in its sights.”[1] In this follow-up Alert, we discuss recent cases confirming the renewed regulatory focus on the construction sector, which demonstrate the need to put in place sound practices for non-discriminatory recruitment, hiring, and training of the work force in order to be prepared for this heightened risk of government scrutiny. Recent EEOC Settlements The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has indicated, in no uncertain terms, that over the next five years it intends to prioritize the mitigation of systemic workplace problems and the historical underrepresentation of women and workers of color in the construction sector.[2] Two recent cases confirm that the EEOC is true to its word when it comes to tackling racial and gender disparities in the construction work force. In August 2024, the EEOC secured two consent decrees with two separate construction firms in Florida, totaling nearly $3 million. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth, Dawn Solowey, Seyfarth, Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth and Adrienne Lee, Seyfarth Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Ms. Solowey may be contacted at dsolowey@seyfarth.com Mr. Scroggins may be contacted at ascroggins@seyfarth.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at aclee@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

May 16, 2018 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In the recent case of In Re Langlois/Novicki Variance Denial, 175 A.3d 1222, 2017 VT 76 (2017), the Vermont court addressed the question of whether a property owner could enforce – by equitable estoppel principles – a representation by a town zoning administrator that no permit or variance was needed for the property owner’s proposed construction. In that case, a landowner wanted to add a pergola to an existing concrete patio on his land. During a social visit at the property, the property owner asked the town zoning administrator if he needed a permit. The town zoning administrator told the property owner that no permit was needed. The property owner thereafter showed the zoning administrator a sketch of the planned construction, and again asked if a permit was required. The town zoning administrator looked at the sketch and repeated his prior advice that no permit was needed. The property owner then spent $33,000 to build the pergola. After incurring the expense, the property owner was advised that the structure violated zoning regulations. The property owner requested a variance, which the zoning board denied. The Court held that the town was estopped from requiring removal of the pergola. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES