FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Three Key Takeaways from Recent Hotel Website ADA Litigation

April 26, 2021 — Shane Singh & Grace Mehta - Lewis Brisbois
Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and its chill on the hospitality industry, ADA-related digital lawsuits increased by approximately 23% in 2020. Many of these lawsuits are filed against hotels. The complaints allege that a hotel’s online reservation system failed to provide enough detail for individuals with disabilities to decide if the hotel meets their accessibility needs. These plaintiffs will often claim that it is insufficient to describe an aspect of a hotel or room as “accessible” because the term is an opinion or conclusion. Plaintiffs argue that a hotel’s reservation system must report specific information, such as the dimensions of space under accessible desks and sinks, the slopes of surfaces, doorway clearance, and numerous other technical requirements under the ADA. Many hotels are fighting back, arguing that the detail provided is sufficient and in compliance with the ADA. So far this year, in February 2021, two judges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Percy Anderson and Judge Cormac Carney, agreed with the defendants, dismissing three cases with prejudice. Reprinted courtesy of Shane Singh, Lewis Brisbois and Grace Mehta, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Singh may be contacted at Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Mehta may be contacted at Grace.Mehta@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

October 19, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
You may have thought that a Virginia “Little Miller Act” bond claim, like a mechanic’s lien, could only be brought by those that provide materials and labor incorporated into the construction project. If you did, you aren’t alone. In fact, Safeco Insurance Co. of America, a surety, made exactly the above argument in Yard Works LLC v. GroundDown Constructors LLC. In that case, a debris hauling company failed to pay Yard Works, the company that provided the dumping site for the debris. Yard Works sued pursuant to the Little Miller Act to get paid. In response, the surety sought to have the claim against the payment bond dismissed and argued that because Yard Works did not actually improve the property or provide improvements and that Yard Works only passively provided a dump site, Yard Works could not claim under the payment bond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Risky Business: Contractual Protections in the 'New Normal'

January 04, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Construction Executive
The point of contracts is to create certainty to avoid litigated or arbitrated disputes. Still, the various parties in the construction process may have different risk tolerances. For example, general contractors are often characterized as “risk-tolerant.” That risk, though, is usually calculated by the contractor internally, outside the terms of the written contract, based on an assumption that the contractor can get the work done more cheaply and more quickly than the owner anticipated. Project owners typically want and expect close-to-absolute certitude—absolutely as to cost—in their construction contracts. The standard fixed-price or lump-sum construction contract is geared toward protecting that interest. Post-COVID-19, however, the discussion in the industry suggests that all bets are off when pricing and agreeing to construction work. Labor and materials shortages have sent owners and their design consultants backpedaling when general contractors pursuing a fixed-price contract seek contractual concessions that “un-fix” the price. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III , Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Economist Predicts Housing Starts to Rise in 2014

February 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
David Crowe, chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), predicts “that single-family home starts in the U.S. could rise more than 30 percent in 2014,” according to Dallas News. “My single-family forecast for 2014 is pretty aggressive — it’s 822,000 starts,” Crowe said to Dallas News. “Which is roughly 200,000 starts more than what we will likely end up with in 2013.” Dallas News also reported specifically on the Texas market. The NAHB forecasts that “by next year, Texas’ housing production will be back to ‘normal’ levels.” However, that is still below “the pre-recession peak” numbers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

January 10, 2018 — Wally Zimolong - Zimolong LLC
Yes. There seems to be common misconception that a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier, has six months from its last day of work on the project to file a mechanics lien. I frequently see mechanics liens whereby the claimant states “Claimants last day of work on the project was X.” However, Section 1502 (49 P.S. Section 1502) of the Pennsylvania Mechanics Lien is clear that a lien must be filed within six month of “the completion of his work.” Under the Lien Law, “completion of the work” is a defined term and means “means performance of the last of the labor or delivery of the last of the materials required by the terms of the claimant’s contract or agreement, whichever last occurs.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects

March 11, 2024 — Patrick McKnight - The Dispute Resolver
Recent reforms to certain state retainage laws have reduced the lawful amount of withholding permitted on construction projects. In theory, retainage allows an owner to mitigate the risk of incomplete or defective work by withholding a certain portion of payment until the construction project is substantially complete. Recent statutory developments in Washington, New York, and Georgia represent significant changes in how much an owner may retain on applicable construction projects in those jurisdictions. The details of each state’s retainage laws vary in many important respects. Most states set caps at 5% or 10%, with important variations depending on the type of project and the amount of progress completed. Some states require retainage to be held in an escrow account, but most do not. Many federal construction projects allow up to 10% retainage, while other federal agencies do not require any retention. See 48 CFR § 52.232-5(e) - Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts. The ongoing motivation for retainage reform is typically framed in terms of reducing delays in getting payment to subcontractors who complete their scope of work on time and free from defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

---

The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

November 18, 2011 — Derek J. Lindenschmidt, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

On November 1, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the certified question of whether property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship is an “occurrence” for purposes of a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 09-1412 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011), the Tenth Circuit determined that because damage to property caused by poor workmanship is generally neither expected nor intended, it may qualify under Colorado law as an occurrence and liability coverage should apply. Id. at 2.

The short history of the Greystone case is as follows. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 649 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 2009), two contractors and one of their insurers brought an action against a second insurer after the second insurer refused to fund the contractors’ defense in construction defect actions brought by separate homeowners. Id. at 1215. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, relying on General Sec. Indem. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), granted summary judgment in favor of the second insurer on the basis that the homeowners’ complaints did not allege accidents that would trigger covered occurrences under the second insurer’s policies. Id. at 1220. Notably, the Greystone, General Security, and other similar decisions prompted the Colorado General Assembly to enact C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which was designed to provide guidance for courts interpreting perceived coverage conflicts between insurance policy provisions and exclusions. The statute requires courts to construe insurance policies to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible. C.R.S. § 13-20-808(5).

The Tenth Circuit began its analysis by determining whether C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which defines the term “accident” for purposes of Colorado insurance law, would have a retroactive effect, and thereby settle the question before the court. The Tenth Circuit gave consideration to several Colorado district court orders issued since the enactment of C.R.S. § 13-20-808 which have suggested that the statute does not apply retroactively, including Martinez v. Mike Wells Constr., No. 09cv227 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Mar. 1, 2011), and Colo. Pool. Sys., Inv. V. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 09cv836 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Oct. 4, 2010). The Tenth Circuit also attempted to ascertain the General Assembly’s intent behind the term “all insurance policies currently in existence...” Greystone, No. 09-1412, at 12. The Tenth Circuit determined that the General Assembly would have more clearly stated its intentions for the term if it was supposed to apply retroactively to expired policies, rather than those still running. Id. at 12-13. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit decided that C.R.S. § 13-20-808 did not apply retroactively, but noted that “the retrospective application of the statute is not necessarily unconstitutional.” Id. at 9, 11-14. As such, the Tenth Circuit advised that it was required to decide the question presented in the appeal under the principles of Colorado insurance law. Id. at 15.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

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

---

Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

June 10, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, deciding that there was no breach of the policy for failure to pay for flood damage when the insured failed to obtain a policy under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 570 Smith St. Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co. Inc., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1773 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 4, 2019). The insured's property in Brooklyn was insured by Seneca. Included in the policy was flood coverage in the amount of $1 million with a $25,000 deductible. While the policy was in effect, Hurricane Sandy hit, damaging the property. Plaintiffs timely filed a claim seeking reimbursement of up to policy limits. Seneca paid only $35,883 and later made an additional payment of $33,015. The insured sued for, among other things, breach of the policy for failure to properly indemnify for the losses. Seneca moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the breach of policy claims. Seneca pointed out that the "Other Insurance" provision in the Flood Coverage Endorsement of the policy stated that if the loss was eligible to be covered under a NFIP policy, but there was no such policy in effect, the insurer would only pay for the amount of loss in excess of the maximum limit payable for flood damage under the policy. The maximum NFIP coverage was $500,000. The insured's loss caused by flood was less than $500,000. 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

---