Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Protect Your Right To Payment By Following Nedd

August 03, 2022 — Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
In order to preserve your right to payment, you must satisfy the contractual requirements supporting a change order for the increased costs or time due to the delay. The key to the successful presentation of change order claims is educating your team on the following: 1. NOTICE

Review the change order and notice provisions of your contracts. Make your contract searchable and insert the term “Noti” and look for the items listed below.
Who: Check the designated representative for notice.

It may not be the project manager.
Confirm who can authorize the change order.

Is owner approval required?
Ensure that the party approving the change order has authority to do so.

What: Check for specific information required by the contract.

Provide ALL information available.
If certain information is not yet available, state that the information will be provided when available.
Reserve all rights to amend and submit additional information.
Request both an increase to the Contract Sum and Contract Time.

Make the request even if you do not believe the delay or time necessary will cause a significant impact.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Ms. Motta may be contacted at dmotta@grsm.com

Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

January 02, 2024 — Ivette Kincaid & Thomas McCarrick - Kahana Feld
Introduction A growing trend in construction defect legislation around the country has seen the shortening of statutes of limitation and statutes of repose for a plaintiff to bring claims related to construction defects. Over the past ten years, several states, notably Florida and Texas, have shortened their statutes of repose. This is generally positive news for developers and contractors; however, the specifics and ramifications of these legislative and judicial updates are still unknown. Statute of Limitations A statute of limitations sets forth the time that a plaintiff has to sue or allege a particular cause of action against a defendant. These time limitations are codified into law and vary depending on the State and the cause of action. A statute of limitations starts at the occurrence of an injury or damage or at the time the injury or damage is discovered. The statute of limitations may be subject to some exceptions such as tolling for reasons such as the injured party being a minor in which case depending on the particular statute, the statute does not begin to run until after the minor reaches the age of majority. Reprinted courtesy of Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld and Thomas McCarrick, Kahana Feld Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Mr. McCarrick may be contacted at tmccarrick@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arbitration is Waivable (Even If You Don’t Mean To)

February 16, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Be careful with how you act with arbitration clauses in your contracts. If you are not careful in how you act to enforce these clauses, you could find yourself stuck in court whether you like it or not. As I stated in a recent update to a post last month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the issue of a contractor’s waiver of its rights to arbitration under a contract. Briefly, the facts of Forrester v. Penn Lyon Homes, et. al., No. 07-2171 are as follows. The Forrester’s sued Penn Lyon and its warranty company alleging among other things a breach of express warranty based upon a warranty contract containing a mandatory arbitration clause. Instead of immediately alleging an affirmative defense based upon the arbitration clause, the defendants removed the case to federal court and litigated for 18 months before raising the arbitration defense for the first time. The 4th Circuit (correctly in my opinion) affirmed the lower court and held that the defendants defaulted their right to arbitration because of their actions in defense of the court action and the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by those actions. 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

Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak

March 06, 2023 — Kayla S. O'Connor - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Rhode Island case of Regan Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Company, Inc., et. al.1 provides much-needed guidance regarding ambiguity and the term “pollution.” In Regan, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a pollution exclusion contained in the Plaintiff’s “Commercial Package Policy” was ambiguous as to whether home heating oil that escaped into a customer’s basement constituted a “pollutant” under the policy. This case stems from a 2015 incident wherein Regan was in the process of removing an older heating system and installing a new heating system in a customer’s home when that customer discovered 170 gallons of home heating oil in his basement. The customer sued Regan, alleging negligence and demanding remediation for the property damage caused by the oil leak. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kayla S. O'Connor, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. O'Connor may be contacted at KOconnor@sdvlaw.com

Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

May 27, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, I’m back and hope to have a more consistent publishing schedule moving forward. I appreciate the continued readership through what has been a busy time for my solo construction practice over the last couple of months. Now, back to our program. . . Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often beaten the drum of a solid contract that leaves as little as possible to chance or the dreaded “grey areas” where we construction lawyers like to make money. An example of the issues that can arise from ambiguity can be found in a case from 2017 in the Western District of Virginia, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al In this case, English, a general contractor, entered into a contract for Quality Assurance (QA) functions with RK&K, the defendant, on a contract English entered into with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Needless to say, because this would not be a post at Musings otherwise, there were issues with the QA performed by RK&K leading to additional costs for English to correct certain work that did not comply with the contract documents between VDOT and English. English sued for breach of contract based upon a term sheet, signed by the parties, from RK&K that required RK&K to indemnify English for claims by VDOT that related to RK&K’s work (the English Term Sheet). RK&K moved to dismiss the complaint based upon a different term sheet, also signed by the parties, which stated that RK&K could not be held responsible for English’s failure to perform pursuant to the contract documents (the RK&K Term Sheet). 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

District Court Allows DBE False Claims Act Case to Proceed

February 23, 2017 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Last week, I posted about how whistleblowers continue to receive large settlements related to DBE fraud. A somewhat recent case from the federal court in Maryland shows how whistleblowers are ferreting out DBE fraud on construction projects receiving any form of federal funding. The Case The case involves a bridge painting project in Maryland that was let by the Maryland State Highway Administration. The contract required the prime contractor to meet a 15% DBE participation goal. The prime contractor submitted a bid stating it would have 15.12% DBE participation. After it was awarded the contract, the prime contractor – as is typical – submitted additional forms certifying to the MSHA that 15.12% of its contract price would be performed by a DBE firm. The prime contractor indicated that one DBE subcontractor, Northeast Work and Safety Boats, LLC (“NWSB”), would perform the 15.12% of the work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Builder Must Respond To Homeowner’s Notice Of Claim Within 14 Days Even If Construction Defect Claim Is Not Alleged With The “Reasonable Detail”

June 05, 2017 — Richard H. Glucksman & David A. Napper - CGDRB News & Publications
On February 10, 2017, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that if a builder fails to acknowledge receipt of a homeowner’s Notice of Claim within 14 days, as required by the Right to Repair Act (“SB800”), specifically California Civil Code §913, the homeowner is released from the requirements of SB800 and may proceed with the filing of a lawsuit. In Blanchette v. Superior Court, Blanchette owned 1 of 28 homes constructed by GHA Enterprises, Inc. (“GHA”). On February 2, 2016, Blanchette served GHA with notice of a claim, setting forth the alleged defects in all 28 homes. On February 23, 2016, GHA responded that the construction defects were not alleged with sufficient “reasonable detail” as required by Civil Code §910. In response, Blanchette asserted that GHA’s response was untimely and thus excused him and the other homeowners from any obligations under SB800. The trial court found for the builder, GHA, holding that Blanchette’s Notice of Claim lacked detail sufficient to trigger GHA’s obligations under SB800. Blanchette appealed the ruling. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

July 25, 2022 — Sarah McBride - Bloomberg
While Elon Musk is publicly making a big deal about moving to Texas and cozying up to the governor, behind the scenes his tunnel-building venture, Boring Co., is wrangling with local authorities in the state over a host of seemingly mundane permitting issues. Since Boring bought land last May to create a research and development center in Bastrop, Texas, a rural area outside Austin, the company has put workers up on mobile homes at the site without authorized sewage facilities, failed to get air and stormwater permits and built a driveway without first getting official approval, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News through a public records request. The company’s dealings with Bastrop are yet another illustration of how Musk’s businesses often push the boundaries of or simply ignore regulations that bind other companies. In recent years his Tesla Inc. restarted production at its Fremont plant in defiance of pandemic rules to stay closed, Boring tried to build a tunnel in Los Angeles without going through an environmental review process and the US Securities and Exchange Commission is examining the disclosure of Musk’s stake in Twitter Inc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride, Bloomberg

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES