FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

November 05, 2014 — Craig Martin - Construction Contractor Advisor
Whether a contractor will be liable to a second purchaser, even though the contractor never contracted with the second purchaser, varies state to state. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Conway v. The Cutler Group, is the latest court to rule that a subsequent purchaser lacks privity and cannot pursue an action against the builder. In that case, the Conways purchased a home from the original owner. After living in the home for about two years, the Conways discovered water leaking around the windows. The Conways sued the builder, alleging breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The builder defended the claim, asserting that it had not contracted with the Conways and thus had not provided any warranties to the Conways. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claim. The first level of appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the warranty of habitability was intended to level the playing field between the builder and purchaser of a home and it should be extended to subsequent purchasers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed and refused to extend any warranties to subsequent purchasers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

April 05, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
There have been a couple of decisions as of late, particularly in federal court, that have gone in favor of a performance bond surety and against a general contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. These decisions have been so unfavorable that they may be swaying certain internal decisions to move to subcontractor default insurance with, perhaps, subcontractors that pose less risk. From the general contractor’s perspective, if they have to stop the management of the job and progress to jump through hoops to trigger the performance bond’s obligations, rightfully or wrongfully, the bond may not provide them the value they need. Performance bonds are an appropriate product in many instances, but there should be more consistency regarding the actual trigger of a subcontractor’s performance bond obligations. Project teams need to absolutely understand what efforts they need to take, and how they need to take such efforts, in order to properly trigger a performance bond’s obligations. This is a must (and I have presented many seminars on this very issue). Or, the general contractor should move away from the traditional AIA /standard performance bond form, which is the direction I always go when I am involved in the drafting of a performance bond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Using Lien and Bond Claims to Secure Project Payments

March 01, 2021 — Jonathan Cheatham - Construction Executive
While suing in court for payment on a construction project is nothing new, the very notion of non-payment tends evokes images of hard-working contractors and subcontractors, working with tight margins, owed payment for services rendered and materials. Fortunately, for general contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry, there are better remedies for securing payment on a project before it becomes a bigger issue. Construction projects, especially large public ones, usually include a dizzying array of general contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors, sometimes numbering more than a hundred entities. The inter-connected groups of companies working toward the goal of project completion require competent construction management in order to stay on time and on budget for completion. One of the project owner’s key tools used to ensure the process runs smoothly is the use of payment bonds and surety bonds. Payment Bonds Payment bonds ensure that contractors and subcontractors get paid for work performed in accordance with contract conditions. Disputes can occur before, during and even after the completion of work. Injunctive lawsuits, which contemplate the stoppage of work, would be detrimental to completing a public or private construction project of substantial size. Rather than having such minor disputes derail the entire project, the aggrieved party’s remedy is to file a claim against the payment bond, which offers a solution designed to keep the issue separate from the project’s completion. The payment bond also allows the project owner to transfer risk. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Cheatham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation

January 31, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & Brittany M. Davidson - Insurance Recovery Blog
An Iowa federal court recently ruled that an insurer must pay its policyholder’s defense costs from the date of installation of the allegedly faulty product, even though the underlying suits failed to allege when damage purportedly occurred. The ruling opens the door under each of the policyholder’s successive liability policies from 2000 to 2008, allowing the policyholder to recover millions of dollars in defense costs. The policyholder sought summary judgment concerning the date(s) on which the insurer’s defense obligation was triggered by fourteen of the fifteen claims asserted against it. The policyholder argued that the duty attached from the moment property damage potentially occurred, meaning the time when the underlying claimant installed or potentially could have installed the windows at issue in the underlying claims. The policyholder cited to the following evidence to support its claim: actual dates of installation (where available), dates of delivery, purchase or manufacture of the windows; and policy period referenced in the insurer’s claims notes as being potentially implicated by the claim. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton & Williams and Brittany M. Davidson, Hunton & Williams Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Ms. Davidson may be contacted at davidsonb@hunton.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Public Policy Prevails: Homebuilders and Homebuyers Cannot Agree to Disclaim Implied Warranty of Habitability in Arizona

November 01, 2022 — Ryan Bennett - The Subrogation Strategist
In Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, et al., 2022 Ariz. LEXIS 309, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that a homebuilder and homebuyer could not waive or disclaim the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. While the court would normally enforce a contract between two parties – even if one side made a “bad deal” – they will not do so if the contract’s terms are against public policy. In this case, Tina Zambrano (Zambrano) signed a purchase agreement with the homebuilder to buy a newly built home. The agreement included provisions which expressly disclaimed any implied warranties, including the warranty of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, Zambrano claimed that there were construction defects within the home, including popped nails in the drywall and issues with the home’s foundation. Zambrano sued the homebuilder for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. The homebuilder moved for summary judgment based on the waivers within the contract and the trial court, agreeing that the waivers applied, dismissed the case. Zambrano appealed and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court specifically explained that Arizona has a public policy interest in protecting consumers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Bennett, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

June 10, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Several bills were passed and will go into effect on July 1, 2015 that affect the construction industry here in Virginia. The most interesting of these was an amendment to the mechanic’s lien statutes relating to waivers of lien rights. As I posted in March, SB891 amended the mechanic’s lien statute, Va. Code Section 43-3, to remove proactive waivers of lien and bond rights. This bill has been signed into law with a minor modification. 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

---

Little Known Florida Venue Statue Benefitting Resident Contractors

June 30, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to venue, there is a rather unknown venue statute that benefits resident contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers working on Florida projects. This statute, Fla. Stat. s. 47.025, states: Any venue provision in a contract for improvement to real property which requires legal action involving a resident contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or materialman, as defined in part I of chapter 713, to be brought outside this state is void as a matter of public policy. To the extent that the venue provision in the contract is void under this section, any legal action arising out of that contract shall be brought only in this state in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located, unless, after the dispute arises, the parties stipulate to another venue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

DC District Court Follows Ninth Circuit’s Lead Dismissing NABA’s Border Wall Case

April 10, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On February 14, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint of the National American Butterfly Association (NABA) alleging that the U.S. Government’s border wall preparation and law enforcement activities at NABA’s National Butterfly Center, located in South Texas along the Rio Grande River, violated federal environmental laws (National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)) as well as NABA’s constitutional rights. The case is National American Butterfly Association v. Nielsen, et al. On January 25, 2017, the President issued an Executive Order to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (Secretary) to “take all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, and construct a physical wall along the southern border” with Mexico. A few weeks later, the Secretary issued a memorandum to the U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement to implement the Executive Order. The land occupied by the NABA has been affected by these actions, as well as other actions taken by the Secretary pursuant to her authority under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), located at 8 U.S.C. § 1103. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---