Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

March 30, 2016 — Eric J. Rollins, Esq. – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
It is common in California for the owners of a project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work as it is completed, but withhold a certain percentage as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. Contractors almost always pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors. Unsurprisingly, disputes can arise regarding when the withheld retentions must be paid. Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after receiving all or part of a retention payment. However, an exception exists -- a direct contractor may withhold from the retention paid to a subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount, whenever a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor.” (See Cal. Civ. Code, § 8814, subd. (c).) The problem with the statute is that it offers no help in defining a “good faith dispute,” and the California courts have historically not provided much guidance either. Can a “good faith dispute” be any dispute between the contracting parties, e.g., a dispute regarding change orders, mismanagement, etc.? Or must the dispute relate specifically to the retention? Unfortunately for California litigants, the answer may depend on the appellate district in which the parties find themselves. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric J. Rollins, Esq., Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Mr. Rollins may be contacted at eric.rollins@ndlf.com

Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms Senior Living Communities as “Residential Properties” for Purposes of the Homeowner Protection Act

November 06, 2023 — Hal Baker - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
The Third Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently interpreted the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 (the “HPA”) in Heights Healthcare v. BCER, 2023 COA 44, decided on May 25, 2023. The Court held that a senior living community that is located on a parcel zoned “commercial” or “mixed use” constitutes “residential property” that is protected by the HPA, regardless of the zoning designation. The claims in Heights Healthcare arose from a contract between BCER and Heights Healthcare for BCER to provide mechanical and electrical services relating to the installation of Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner units at the senior living community. The contract between the parties included a limitation of liability clause, limiting BCER’s liability to a total of $22,500 for the total cost of services rendered. After the installation, Heights Healthcare discovered that the air conditioner units were malfunctioning, causing too few of the eighty-four units to run and tripping the breaker—shutting down the entire system—when the outdoor temperature dropped too low. Following the discovery of the malfunction, Heights Healthcare filed suit against BCER for breach of contract under the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hal Baker, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Baker may be contacted at baker@hhmrlaw.com

Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

March 22, 2017 — Nadine M. Post – Engineering News-Record
The complex maneuver of lifting heavy prefabricated modules out of New York City's East River to build a university laboratory took careful planning and the work of one particular floating crane with a complicated past. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for Contractors

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Craig Martin on his blog Construction Contractor Advisor discusses the potential problems for a contractor that a “boilerplate contract” could cause: “A recent case revealed the problems a contractor had with permits when the contractor’s estimate contemplated an easy permitting process and compliance, but in actuality it was much, much more difficult.” Martin cites the case Bell/Heery v. United States, where a contractor discovered that the permit process would be much more time-consuming and expensive than originally planned. When Bell/Heery asked for additional funds to cover the additional costs, the “contracting officer rejected the request, finding that Bell/Heery had assumed the risk of the permitting process and it was liable for any costs associated with the permitting process and construction methods required by the permitting process.” “Bell/Heery appealed to the Court of Claims,” but lost the battle. The contractor had to absorb $7 million in costs to comply with the required permits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

February 22, 2018 — Aarni Heiskanen – aec business
I met Jarmo, the Technology Manager at Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, at the leading event for housing markets in Helsinki (Asuntomarkkinat). He and his team had set up an impressive display of devices and structures in the KIRA-digi showroom. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, aec business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

August 10, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Colorado Supreme Court determined that the insurer defending under a reservation of rights could not intervene in the underlying case after the insured assigned its rights to any bad faith claim against the insurer. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2021 Colo. LEXIS 365 (Colo. May 24, 2021). Bolt Factory initiated a construction defects lawsuit against various contractors. Several defendants filed third-party complaints against subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Company. Auto-Owners agreed to defend its insured, Sierra Glass, under a reservation of rights. Auto-Owners declined to settle with Bolt Factory for $1.9 million, within policy limits. Sierra Glass then retains independent counsel and entered into a settlement with Bolt Factory. The settlement allowed Sierra Glass to assign its bad faith claims to Bolt Factory in exchange for the right to pursue the insurer for payment of the excess judgment rather than Sierra Glass. Instead of entering into a stipulated judgment, Bolt Factory and Sierra Glass proceeded to an abbreviated trial. 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

Consider Short-Term Lease Workouts For Commercial Tenants

August 17, 2020 — Steven Ostrow, C. Jason Kim & Patrick Haggerty - White and Williams
The COVID-19 pandemic is adversely affecting commercial real estate as it continues to wreak havoc in industries throughout the economy. For many years, the primary declining CRE sector has been brick and mortar retail stores. However, the retail sector is no longer suffering alone, as the COVID-19 outbreak is hurting most other CRE sectors: office, hospitality, multifamily, restaurant, personal services, entertainment and construction. Federal, state and local governments have ordered business shutdowns and social and travel restrictions limiting most social and commercial activities. As a result, commercial tenants throughout the country are going out of business, temporarily closing, curtailing operations, laying off employees and suffering sharply declining revenues. Short-Term Leasing Workouts of Tenant Defaults Thousands of tenants are partially operating or temporarily closed and lack sufficient cash flow or access to additional working capital to pay some or all of their rent. How should a landlord address a distressed tenant's default and request for rent relief, taking into account the landlord's own responsibilities to pay maintenance costs, real estate taxes and debt service on the property? Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Steven Ostrow, C. Jason Kim and Patrick Haggerty Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Kim may be contacted at kimcj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Haggerty may be contacted at haggertyp@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

September 24, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Stairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so. A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station. Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed. The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].) The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256. Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES